[Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

Geoff Brigham
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.

   - You can find the current version of our terms of use here:
   http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use .
   - You can view the new draft here:
   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use

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

--
Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6750
[hidden email]

*California Registered In-House Counsel*

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge.  That's our commitment.  www.wikimediafoundation.org

_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

Steven Walling-3
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Geoff Brigham <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:13 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review
To: [hidden email]
Cc: Geoff Brigham <[hidden email]>


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.

   - You can find the current version of our terms of use here:
   http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use .
   - You can view the new draft here:
   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use

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

--
Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6750
[hidden email]

*California Registered In-House Counsel*

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge.  That's our commitment.  www.wikimediafoundation.org




_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia
Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l




--
Steven Walling
Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

theo10011
In reply to this post by Geoff Brigham
Thanks Geoff. One point that I would like some clarification on-


>    - 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.
>
>
Is this a new direction? A new system that is being considered for WMF
intervention in such matters? So far, these decisions have been left solely
to local project bodies, or in the absence, to Stewards. I am wondering what
the draft is going to cover. Can someone please shed some light on this?

Thanks
Theo
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Steven Walling-3
The previous terms contained essentially no behavioral prohibitions. I'm not
sure if this was out of concern for Section 230 status, the independence of
projects wrt policy making, or some other reason, but this new set of terms
is a huge departure. It prohibits a broad range of unwanted activity, which
raises the question: how does the WMF intend to enforce it? Would enforcing
these terms threaten its immunity as a service provider? If the terms are
not consistently enforced, doesn't that present its own set of liability
concerns?

I'd also like to see some exceptions to the indemnity terms. The way I read
it, an editor could violate a law that itself contradicts international
human rights norms, and if the WMF incurred any joint liability as a result,
the indemnification attempts to transfer that liability to the editor. I can
see unintended consequences coming from this; even if as a practical matter
the WMF can make a case-by-case decision, departing from the terms - where
the terms allow no flexibility - presents its own problems. If for no other
reason, stating a human rights exception to the terms would make clear
Wikimedia's intention to be a good corporate citizen (a fact that is
otherwise just implied by the folksy writing style.)

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Geoff Brigham
On 8 September 2011 22:13, Geoff Brigham <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>   - You can find the current version of our terms of use here:
>   http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use .
>   - You can view the new draft here:
>   http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use

To what extent are terms of use like this actually meaningful? Are
there any precedents of them being upheld in court? If so, in what
jurisdictions? Does using a website really constitute acceptance of a
contract that everyone knows you haven't read?

If you're not actually going to be able to do anything with these
terms of use, then we shouldn't have any.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by theo10011
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 00:18, Theo10011 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>    - 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.
>>
> Is this a new direction? A new system that is being considered for WMF
> intervention in such matters? So far, these decisions have been left solely
> to local project bodies, or in the absence, to Stewards. I am wondering what
> the draft is going to cover. Can someone please shed some light on this?

As a steward I can just say: Thanks Thing that it's not anymore
stewards' job! As it will be staff action in the future, we wouldn't
have that recurring problem anymore!

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

rupert THURNER-2
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 01:48, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 00:18, Theo10011 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>    - 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.
>>>
>> Is this a new direction? A new system that is being considered for WMF
>> intervention in such matters? So far, these decisions have been left solely
>> to local project bodies, or in the absence, to Stewards. I am wondering what
>> the draft is going to cover. Can someone please shed some light on this?
>
> As a steward I can just say: Thanks Thing that it's not anymore
> stewards' job! As it will be staff action in the future, we wouldn't
> have that recurring problem anymore!

hahaha ... sure, where does it stop and whats next? do not have any
stewards any more?  then have no admins any more? i would really love
if you just ask any person on the street the question: imagine you
give 10 $ to wikipedia, should we use it to pay a lawyer to make the
terms of use 10 times as long as before? and then count the "yes"
answers :)

rupert.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

Kudu-2
That'll be more than $10 at ~$200/hour. :P

~K

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:14 PM, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 01:48, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 00:18, Theo10011 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>    - 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.
> >>>
> >> Is this a new direction? A new system that is being considered for WMF
> >> intervention in such matters? So far, these decisions have been left
> solely
> >> to local project bodies, or in the absence, to Stewards. I am wondering
> what
> >> the draft is going to cover. Can someone please shed some light on this?
> >
> > As a steward I can just say: Thanks Thing that it's not anymore
> > stewards' job! As it will be staff action in the future, we wouldn't
> > have that recurring problem anymore!
>
> hahaha ... sure, where does it stop and whats next? do not have any
> stewards any more?  then have no admins any more? i would really love
> if you just ask any person on the street the question: imagine you
> give 10 $ to wikipedia, should we use it to pay a lawyer to make the
> terms of use 10 times as long as before? and then count the "yes"
> answers :)
>
> rupert.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by rupert THURNER-2
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 02:14, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 01:48, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 00:18, Theo10011 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>    - 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.
>>>>
>>> Is this a new direction? A new system that is being considered for WMF
>>> intervention in such matters? So far, these decisions have been left solely
>>> to local project bodies, or in the absence, to Stewards. I am wondering what
>>> the draft is going to cover. Can someone please shed some light on this?
>>
>> As a steward I can just say: Thanks Thing that it's not anymore
>> stewards' job! As it will be staff action in the future, we wouldn't
>> have that recurring problem anymore!
>
> hahaha ... sure, where does it stop and whats next? do not have any
> stewards any more?  then have no admins any more? i would really love
> if you just ask any person on the street the question: imagine you
> give 10 $ to wikipedia, should we use it to pay a lawyer to make the
> terms of use 10 times as long as before? and then count the "yes"
> answers :)

ToS is WMF's issue and WMF should implement it. Stewards are not WMF's
employees and deals with community rules.

It is true that harassment is problem, but community doesn't have
tools to deal with it; which means that stewards don't have as well.
As WMF stepped out, that means that it has the idea how to implement
it.

As I am speaking as a steward, I have to say that it's very good news
for us. Instead of being harassed because not dealing with harassment,
since the implementation of ToS that would be WMF's job. That's really
good news for stewards!

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

Sue Gardner-2
On 8 September 2011 17:28, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As I am speaking as a steward, I have to say that it's very good news
> for us. Instead of being harassed because not dealing with harassment,
> since the implementation of ToS that would be WMF's job. That's really
> good news for stewards!


The purpose of the new TOS is to support the community, not to take
over its work.

Geoff and members of the Community department have been speaking
recently with community members who are concerned about harassment on
the wikis, about what kinds of actions we might collectively take to
help prevent it. Making it clear that harassment is against the rules
seems like an obvious step, and indeed I've seen research that
suggests an inverse relationship between sites that have a TOS that
prohibits harassment, and incidents of harassment on those sites. [1]

Explicitly and publicly forbidding harassment on the wikis is a pretty
basic and straightforward thing to do.

Thanks,
Sue

[1] I wish I had that study at hand, but I don't. I found it, I think,
through a Google Scholar search related to danah boyd. The researcher
was an expert in online harassment, either at Berkman or maybe MIT.





--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use forReview

Phil Nash-3
Sue Gardner wrote:

> On 8 September 2011 17:28, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> As I am speaking as a steward, I have to say that it's very good news
>> for us. Instead of being harassed because not dealing with
>> harassment, since the implementation of ToS that would be WMF's job.
>> That's really good news for stewards!
>
>
> The purpose of the new TOS is to support the community, not to take
> over its work.
>
> Geoff and members of the Community department have been speaking
> recently with community members who are concerned about harassment on
> the wikis, about what kinds of actions we might collectively take to
> help prevent it. Making it clear that harassment is against the rules
> seems like an obvious step, and indeed I've seen research that
> suggests an inverse relationship between sites that have a TOS that
> prohibits harassment, and incidents of harassment on those sites. [1]
>
> Explicitly and publicly forbidding harassment on the wikis is a pretty
> basic and straightforward thing to do.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
> [1] I wish I had that study at hand, but I don't. I found it, I think,
> through a Google Scholar search related to danah boyd. The researcher
> was an expert in online harassment, either at Berkman or maybe MIT.

There's a major difference between online harassment, and robust debate,
although most of us can tell where we draw our own lines. The difference is
perhaps, largely cultural, and especially in non-English speaking
communities, where translations may be inexact and externally
misinterpreted. That is why I think that issues such as this should be
determined at a local Wiki level rather than being seen to be imposed at a
higher, and (it has to be said) Anglo-centric level.

But I am also fully aware that whatever TOS are stated, some editors won't
subscribe to them, for whatever reason, and others, even if aware of them,
will lawyer or sock their way round them. And there is little that can be
done about that at Foundation level other than setting out a principle.
Well, hot dog! POV-pushers will continue to do so, and bully other editors
with whom they are in disagreement, regardless of principles. But those
editors will be sanctioned locally, and maybe find that there is no WM
project left for their outpourings.

Global bans are already available; but disruptive editors on one Wiki within
the WM umbrella have gone on to be constructive editors elsewhere. I seem to
remember Jimbo preaching forgiveness, and I see this proposal, unless I have
misunderstood it completely, as being anathema to that.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use forReview

Steven Walling
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Phil Nash <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Global bans are already available; but disruptive editors on one Wiki
> within
> the WM umbrella have gone on to be constructive editors elsewhere. I seem
> to
> remember Jimbo preaching forgiveness, and I see this proposal, unless I
> have
> misunderstood it completely, as being anathema to that.
>

The terms merely say that you *can* be banned locally or globally for
violating the ToS or community-created policy, not precisely *how* or *when
*that happens in every case. For local matters, they'll function exactly how
they do now, and I hope it's clear that the terms set out to complement and
support how the projects function individually on a day-to-day basis, not
change that at all.

For global issues, I think this will be worked out when there is a clear
policy that lays out how global bans should work. That's why there's a red
link to "Global Ban Policy" in the document.

As usual, the devil is in the details: we could have a policy that says that
anyone with a ban on two or more projects is automatically globally banned
(hypothetical, not desirable at all from my POV). Or we can go the route
that assumes that all governance over bans is completely local to the
individual projects where a user might appear, *until* the community asks
for and comes to a cross-wiki consensus on a particularly bad case that
requires a global ban. Ultimately how this works needs to be decided not by
the Foundation, but by community members who know better than we do about
what harassment, stalking, and the cross-wiki problems look like.

Also, in response to this and Milos' comments, I will say frankly that in
our conversations at the Foundation we have not discussed some kind of team
of staff reviewing/approving/implementing bans based on the Terms of Use as
proposed. We're not Facebook. So while I agree that it's a good thing to
quit making the Stewards deal with any decisions they don't want to make
about global bans, like Sue said, it's not the job of the Terms to hand over
volunteer functions to the Foundation.

Steven

P.S. It's only been a few hours and there is already a ton of useful
feedback on the Talk page. \o/ Thanks to everyone who has jumped on this.
You're awesome.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use forReview

Sue Gardner-2
In reply to this post by Phil Nash-3
On 8 September 2011 19:01, Phil Nash <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There's a major difference between online harassment, and robust debate,
> although most of us can tell where we draw our own lines.

Oh yikes, Phil, please don't misunderstand me! The conversations we
were having were about one or two people who have been repeatedly
harassing large numbers of Wikimedians for years. I am not talking
about editors who engage in discussions and get a bit rude; I am
talking about people who are probably seriously mentally ill.

This is not a backdoor attempt to enforce kindness. We're just trying
to support and protect editors against really very egregious
behaviour.

Thanks,
Sue




--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

Tom Morris-5
In reply to this post by Geoff Brigham
On Thursday, September 8, 2011, Geoff Brigham wrote:

> 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.
>

Okay...

"Prohibited activities include:"
"Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights;"

Copyright I can understand. Nobody wants copyvios.

But there are plenty of examples where we might infringe on patents.

Given that the doubly-linked list is the subject of a (possibly
unenforceable) software patent in the United States, the very act of writing
a Wikipedia article about or Wikibooks chapter on programming a linked list
may count as infringing the software patent.

The paragraph before doesn't make it clear to me whether these are forbidden
by the terms of use, forbidden by the rules of the projects or forbidden by
law. The tone of the paragraph is kind of strange: it's already illegal for
me to DDoS Wikipedia because of the UK's Computer Misuse Act etc.
Skim-reading the list may lead the reader to think this adds no new rules to
bide by beyond those imposed by the law of their country and the United
States. It'd be helpful if that could be clarified.

I'm sure when I'm not tired and on the last train home, I'll find some other
things to nitpick. ;-)

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>


--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

Milos Rancic-2
In reply to this post by Sue Gardner-2
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 03:17, Sue Gardner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8 September 2011 17:28, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> As I am speaking as a steward, I have to say that it's very good news
>> for us. Instead of being harassed because not dealing with harassment,
>> since the implementation of ToS that would be WMF's job. That's really
>> good news for stewards!
>
>
> The purpose of the new TOS is to support the community, not to take
> over its work.
>
> Geoff and members of the Community department have been speaking
> recently with community members who are concerned about harassment on
> the wikis, about what kinds of actions we might collectively take to
> help prevent it. Making it clear that harassment is against the rules
> seems like an obvious step, and indeed I've seen research that
> suggests an inverse relationship between sites that have a TOS that
> prohibits harassment, and incidents of harassment on those sites. [1]
>
> Explicitly and publicly forbidding harassment on the wikis is a pretty
> basic and straightforward thing to do.

Sue, someone has to investigate and decide about harassment. Stewards
are able to block, but don't judge; especially in the cases where it
would be probably needed to analyze personal emails.

With or without that ToS, any sane ArbCom would block persons who
harass others. But, we don't have a body which is able to do that
globally. The first step is to get that body, then to make some things
explicit.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use for Review

Kudu-2
I'd rather have harassment dealt with first by each community's AN/I
boards and ArbCom if necessary, and then the Global Requests Committee
or whatever it ends up being called. I don't think neither stewards
nor the WMF are in the proper position to make arbitrary calls over
user conduct. Stewards are meant to be for black and white cases.
Personally, I support the introduction of a global ban policy allowing
both for Committee and community bans.

~K

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> With or without that ToS, any sane ArbCom would block persons who
> harass others. But, we don't have a body which is able to do that
> globally. The first step is to get that body, then to make some things
> explicit.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of UseforReview

Phil Nash-3
In reply to this post by Sue Gardner-2
Sue Gardner wrote:

> On 8 September 2011 19:01, Phil Nash <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> There's a major difference between online harassment, and robust
>> debate, although most of us can tell where we draw our own lines.
>
> Oh yikes, Phil, please don't misunderstand me! The conversations we
> were having were about one or two people who have been repeatedly
> harassing large numbers of Wikimedians for years. I am not talking
> about editors who engage in discussions and get a bit rude; I am
> talking about people who are probably seriously mentally ill.
>
> This is not a backdoor attempt to enforce kindness. We're just trying
> to support and protect editors against really very egregious
> behaviour.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue

Maybe I have missed the point, but my lawyer's/Wikimedian's mind tells me
that hiking the TOS's is not going to have a major effect, and the effort
into changing the TOS is arguably outweighed by the effort expended by those
who care not for subscribing to those terms.

I think I've been around for long enough to know that not only are WM
projects vulnerable to those with an agenda, who care not for blocks or
bans, whether local or global; these people are committed to some agenda
that is prepared to reject any idea of community, and proceed with that
agenda as long, and as much as they can. I think we know of whom we are
talking here.

But changing, and toughening up the TOS is sending the right message to the
wrong people. Any technically savvy journalist is going to realise the
weakness in doing that, and any committed troll/vandal/disrupter is going to
be able to subvert any technical measures, if only by moving his/her laptop
into a new WiFi Area and crating a new account.

As a principle, global blocking is OK; in practice, it's a non-starter, and
changing the TOS is not going to change that unless the Foundation is going
to institute legal proceedings in extreme cases, which it has never done,
and brings into doubt its s.530 status. I'm aware of more than one case in
which this could have been done, but hasn't. unless and until there is a
real move to do that, merely changing the wording, even globally, is nothing
more than a gesture.






_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of UseforReview

David Gerard-2
On 10 September 2011 01:15, Phil Nash <[hidden email]> wrote:

> But changing, and toughening up the TOS is sending the right message to the
> wrong people. Any technically savvy journalist is going to realise the
> weakness in doing that, and any committed troll/vandal/disrupter is going to
> be able to subvert any technical measures, if only by moving his/her laptop
> into a new WiFi Area and crating a new account.


In a possibly-surprising result, really egregious stalkers don't
conceal themselves; they tend to act unconcealed (down to address and
phone number), in an attempt to say that you can't do anything about
them. And this is largely true - it's surprisingly difficult to do
anything about mere intimidation *before* it gets physical. Adding a
term to the TOS may seem a decoration liable to abuse, but the purpose
is to give something phrased to actually be legally useful. Not being
a lawyer, I'm not going to second-guess the phrasing Geoff' used here.

tl;dr this is actually thought out and for a reason, though great
caution about it is understandable.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Draft Terms of Use forReview

KIZU Naoko
In reply to this post by Sue Gardner-2
Thank you Geoff, Sue and others who are working on. I take this whole
thread as one of good faith fruits and sincere desire on WMF to
collaborate with us at the community as well to help us out.

Well, I however feel double-bound. In the one side I think it good and
appropriate for WMF as a legal entity and users in general,
particularly English speaking people. On the other side I am not sure
how it can be practical for the community, users and people who are
harassed on Wikimedia wikis but have never been a part of community in
case any or extremely every involved party doesn't understand English
and reside out of US jurisdiction.

Based on a fact of our community spreads globally, so differentiated
into over a hundred by jurisdiction and by language,  I have honestly
no idea how ToU available only in English would affect us who are out
of US jurisdiction and don't speak English daily. Even in the proposed
30 day review, it would be nominal for its user majority don't speak
English, unless translations are provided in major languages to the
project as well user base.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Sue Gardner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8 September 2011 19:01, Phil Nash <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> There's a major difference between online harassment, and robust debate,
>> although most of us can tell where we draw our own lines.
>
> Oh yikes, Phil, please don't misunderstand me! The conversations we
> were having were about one or two people who have been repeatedly
> harassing large numbers of Wikimedians for years. I am not talking
> about editors who engage in discussions and get a bit rude; I am
> talking about people who are probably seriously mentally ill.

Unfortunately some names are passing in my mind ... frankly, several.
More than ten. Whoa. And only two of them spoke English fluently iirc,
and all of them are out of the US jurisdiction if we've analyzed given
information correctly. That means, the local communities which have
confronted those kinds of people, many of Wikimedia community member
are not good in English either in many cases.

As said, whilst I welcome to make ToU more detailed and featuring many
issues which the current one misses to mention,  but for facilitating
the community in entire, language barrier issues should be taken more
seriously. Even into few language versions, for example. We need here
make a practical compromise - yes, compromise, since it's obvious
currently we have no way to provide every language. I have never seen
any Wikimedia Foundation information, including fundraising banners,
translated into every language in which Wikipedia at that time was
running since 2004, when I joined the project.

Cheers,

>
> This is not a backdoor attempt to enforce kindness. We're just trying
> to support and protect editors against really very egregious
> behaviour.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sue Gardner
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 415 839 6885 office
> 415 816 9967 cell
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
member of Wikimedians in Kansai  / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l