Quantcast

[Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
54 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Jacob Rogers
Hi all,

As I mentioned in my email earlier this month, we've put together a longer
statement regarding paid editing and how we see the balance of the
communities' role and the role that WMF legal can play in these cases. We
tried to address the concerns that people have raised to us, and explain
when it's helpful to contact us to assist on a case. Of note, it does
explain what actions we can take even in cases that don't involve the WMF
trademarks.

You can find it here: Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and
outing
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing>

Best,
Jacob
--

Jacob Rogers
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation

NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice
to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see
our legal disclaimer
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

jmh649
Jacob and the rest of the legal team.

Many thanks for your clarifications on the "private information" versus
"off Wikipedia information" issue.

Also it is excellent to see your willingness to adjudicate on especially
controversial cases.

Best
James

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Jacob Rogers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As I mentioned in my email earlier this month, we've put together a longer
> statement regarding paid editing and how we see the balance of the
> communities' role and the role that WMF legal can play in these cases. We
> tried to address the concerns that people have raised to us, and explain
> when it's helpful to contact us to assist on a case. Of note, it does
> explain what actions we can take even in cases that don't involve the WMF
> trademarks.
>
> You can find it here: Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and
> outing
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_
> Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing>
>
> Best,
> Jacob
> --
>
> Jacob Rogers
> Legal Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
> information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
> delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
> Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice
> to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
> members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see
> our legal disclaimer
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Jytdog at Wikipedia
In reply to this post by Jacob Rogers
Thanks for this Jacob.

Would you please address Legal's approach to the following scenario:  a
company advertises Wikipedia editing services for clients, and there is no
disclosure of paid editing by an editor employed by or affiliated with the
company on Wikipedia.   (In other words, a company is obviously not
following the Terms of Use).

In my view, this is a situation where I would think that Legal should start
a discussion with that company, and if those discussions fail to yield a
change in behavior, Legal should then make a public statement indicating
this, perhaps on the page you recently posted under a section entitled
something like: "Companies that advertise Wikipedia editing services that
have no disclosures on Wikipedia".  If a company starts to disclose then of
course the listing could be modified.

This is something that editors ~could~ do, but as the ToU are issued by the
WMF, it would seem more appropriate for WMF to do.

But I am interested to hear Legal's perspective.

Thanks

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Jacob Rogers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As I mentioned in my email earlier this month, we've put together a longer
> statement regarding paid editing and how we see the balance of the
> communities' role and the role that WMF legal can play in these cases. We
> tried to address the concerns that people have raised to us, and explain
> when it's helpful to contact us to assist on a case. Of note, it does
> explain what actions we can take even in cases that don't involve the WMF
> trademarks.
>
> You can find it here: Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and
> outing
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_
> Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing>
>
> Best,
> Jacob
> --
>
> Jacob Rogers
> Legal Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
> information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
> delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
> Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice
> to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
> members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see
> our legal disclaimer
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Pine W
In reply to this post by Jacob Rogers
Hi Jacob,

Thank you for following up.

I wonder what more Legal could to deter bad-faith editors from venturing
onto Wikipedia in the first place and engaging in inappropriate activity.
Keep in mind how much high-skill volunteer time is diverted into
investigating and cleaning up after bad-faith editors that could instead be
used to develop new features, train new contributors, or write more content
if there were fewer bad actors on the site. My thought is that WMF could
take a more proactive deterrent approach by amending the ToU to specify
financial compensation (or fines) to be paid to WMF, starting with the
first offense, for certain types of bad-faith editing, particularly
undisclosed paid editing. I believe that a number of ISPs and web hosts
have similar provisions in their terms of use for fines for when the
service providers determine that one of their customers is using the
providers' services to send junk email or other problematic content. The
deterrent effect is important to limit the harm to the integrity of the
encyclopedia, and to limit and deter the considerable "theft" of the time
of volunteers who investigate and clean up after bad actors. What do you
think about that suggestion? If you are not in favor of it, what
alternatives would you propose to limit the harms to the encyclopedia and
the diversion of community members' time?

Pine


On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Jacob Rogers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As I mentioned in my email earlier this month, we've put together a longer
> statement regarding paid editing and how we see the balance of the
> communities' role and the role that WMF legal can play in these cases. We
> tried to address the concerns that people have raised to us, and explain
> when it's helpful to contact us to assist on a case. Of note, it does
> explain what actions we can take even in cases that don't involve the WMF
> trademarks.
>
> You can find it here: Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and
> outing
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_
> Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing>
>
> Best,
> Jacob
> --
>
> Jacob Rogers
> Legal Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
> information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
> delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
> Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice
> to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
> members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see
> our legal disclaimer
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

jmh649
In reply to this post by Jytdog at Wikipedia
If we had such a list of known bad actors created by the WMF we could than
more easily apply the G5 speedy deletion criteria.

It is easier to associate an undisclosed paid editor with the company they
are from than with their previous sock accounts.

James

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Thanks for this Jacob.
>
> Would you please address Legal's approach to the following scenario:  a
> company advertises Wikipedia editing services for clients, and there is no
> disclosure of paid editing by an editor employed by or affiliated with the
> company on Wikipedia.   (In other words, a company is obviously not
> following the Terms of Use).
>
> In my view, this is a situation where I would think that Legal should start
> a discussion with that company, and if those discussions fail to yield a
> change in behavior, Legal should then make a public statement indicating
> this, perhaps on the page you recently posted under a section entitled
> something like: "Companies that advertise Wikipedia editing services that
> have no disclosures on Wikipedia".  If a company starts to disclose then of
> course the listing could be modified.
>
> This is something that editors ~could~ do, but as the ToU are issued by the
> WMF, it would seem more appropriate for WMF to do.
>
> But I am interested to hear Legal's perspective.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Jacob Rogers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As I mentioned in my email earlier this month, we've put together a
> longer
> > statement regarding paid editing and how we see the balance of the
> > communities' role and the role that WMF legal can play in these cases. We
> > tried to address the concerns that people have raised to us, and explain
> > when it's helpful to contact us to assist on a case. Of note, it does
> > explain what actions we can take even in cases that don't involve the WMF
> > trademarks.
> >
> > You can find it here: Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and
> > outing
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_
> > Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing>
> >
> > Best,
> > Jacob
> > --
> >
> > Jacob Rogers
> > Legal Counsel
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
> > information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
> > delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
> > Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal
> advice
> > to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
> > members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please
> see
> > our legal disclaimer
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

jmh649
Okay I have been bold and started a list of the known banned socks of
companies involved in undisclosed paid editing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Paid_Editing_Companies

I have also started the discussion of the policy implications of such a
list here and will not work further on the list further until the policy
discussions are complete

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Socks_of_undisclosed_paid_WP_editing_companies

Best
James

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:52 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If we had such a list of known bad actors created by the WMF we could than
> more easily apply the G5 speedy deletion criteria.
>
> It is easier to associate an undisclosed paid editor with the company they
> are from than with their previous sock accounts.
>
> James
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for this Jacob.
>>
>> Would you please address Legal's approach to the following scenario:  a
>> company advertises Wikipedia editing services for clients, and there is no
>> disclosure of paid editing by an editor employed by or affiliated with the
>> company on Wikipedia.   (In other words, a company is obviously not
>> following the Terms of Use).
>>
>> In my view, this is a situation where I would think that Legal should
>> start
>> a discussion with that company, and if those discussions fail to yield a
>> change in behavior, Legal should then make a public statement indicating
>> this, perhaps on the page you recently posted under a section entitled
>> something like: "Companies that advertise Wikipedia editing services that
>> have no disclosures on Wikipedia".  If a company starts to disclose then
>> of
>> course the listing could be modified.
>>
>> This is something that editors ~could~ do, but as the ToU are issued by
>> the
>> WMF, it would seem more appropriate for WMF to do.
>>
>> But I am interested to hear Legal's perspective.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Jacob Rogers <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > As I mentioned in my email earlier this month, we've put together a
>> longer
>> > statement regarding paid editing and how we see the balance of the
>> > communities' role and the role that WMF legal can play in these cases.
>> We
>> > tried to address the concerns that people have raised to us, and explain
>> > when it's helpful to contact us to assist on a case. Of note, it does
>> > explain what actions we can take even in cases that don't involve the
>> WMF
>> > trademarks.
>> >
>> > You can find it here: Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and
>> > outing
>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_
>> > Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing>
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Jacob
>> > --
>> >
>> > Jacob Rogers
>> > Legal Counsel
>> > Wikimedia Foundation
>> >
>> > NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
>> > information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
>> > delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
>> > Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal
>> advice
>> > to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
>> > members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please
>> see
>> > our legal disclaimer
>> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
>



--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Rogol Domedonfors
Perhaps the WMF should drive the paid editing companied out of business by
competition?  They could try setting up a subsidiary trading company to
carry out paid editing in a professional and legally compliant manner.  I
am sure this could be popular with the community as a way of getting a
return on their hard-won skills.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:23 PM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Okay I have been bold and started a list of the known banned socks of
> companies involved in undisclosed paid editing
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Paid_Editing_Companies
>
> I have also started the discussion of the policy implications of such a
> list here and will not work further on the list further until the policy
> discussions are complete
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#
> Socks_of_undisclosed_paid_WP_editing_companies
>
> Best
> James
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:52 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > If we had such a list of known bad actors created by the WMF we could
> than
> > more easily apply the G5 speedy deletion criteria.
> >
> > It is easier to associate an undisclosed paid editor with the company
> they
> > are from than with their previous sock accounts.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for this Jacob.
> >>
> >> Would you please address Legal's approach to the following scenario:  a
> >> company advertises Wikipedia editing services for clients, and there is
> no
> >> disclosure of paid editing by an editor employed by or affiliated with
> the
> >> company on Wikipedia.   (In other words, a company is obviously not
> >> following the Terms of Use).
> >>
> >> In my view, this is a situation where I would think that Legal should
> >> start
> >> a discussion with that company, and if those discussions fail to yield a
> >> change in behavior, Legal should then make a public statement indicating
> >> this, perhaps on the page you recently posted under a section entitled
> >> something like: "Companies that advertise Wikipedia editing services
> that
> >> have no disclosures on Wikipedia".  If a company starts to disclose then
> >> of
> >> course the listing could be modified.
> >>
> >> This is something that editors ~could~ do, but as the ToU are issued by
> >> the
> >> WMF, it would seem more appropriate for WMF to do.
> >>
> >> But I am interested to hear Legal's perspective.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Jacob Rogers <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > As I mentioned in my email earlier this month, we've put together a
> >> longer
> >> > statement regarding paid editing and how we see the balance of the
> >> > communities' role and the role that WMF legal can play in these cases.
> >> We
> >> > tried to address the concerns that people have raised to us, and
> explain
> >> > when it's helpful to contact us to assist on a case. Of note, it does
> >> > explain what actions we can take even in cases that don't involve the
> >> WMF
> >> > trademarks.
> >> >
> >> > You can find it here: Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing
> and
> >> > outing
> >> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_
> >> > Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing>
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > Jacob
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Jacob Rogers
> >> > Legal Counsel
> >> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >> >
> >> > NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
> >> > information in it. If you have received this message by accident,
> please
> >> > delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
> >> > Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal
> >> advice
> >> > to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
> >> > members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means,
> please
> >> see
> >> > our legal disclaimer
> >> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by jmh649
`What we actually need is clarity from the en:wp arbcom. They could
easily say "yes Legal has advised X but we are stricter", and note
that they have already banned users for outing blatant bad faith
spammers. GorillaWarfare's commentary on this, both personal and
speaking for the arbcom, are probably required at this point.


- d.


On 19 January 2017 at 14:23, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Okay I have been bold and started a list of the known banned socks of
> companies involved in undisclosed paid editing
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Paid_Editing_Companies
>
> I have also started the discussion of the policy implications of such a
> list here and will not work further on the list further until the policy
> discussions are complete
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Socks_of_undisclosed_paid_WP_editing_companies
>
> Best
> James
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:52 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> If we had such a list of known bad actors created by the WMF we could than
>> more easily apply the G5 speedy deletion criteria.
>>
>> It is easier to associate an undisclosed paid editor with the company they
>> are from than with their previous sock accounts.
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Jytdog at Wikipedia <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for this Jacob.
>>>
>>> Would you please address Legal's approach to the following scenario:  a
>>> company advertises Wikipedia editing services for clients, and there is no
>>> disclosure of paid editing by an editor employed by or affiliated with the
>>> company on Wikipedia.   (In other words, a company is obviously not
>>> following the Terms of Use).
>>>
>>> In my view, this is a situation where I would think that Legal should
>>> start
>>> a discussion with that company, and if those discussions fail to yield a
>>> change in behavior, Legal should then make a public statement indicating
>>> this, perhaps on the page you recently posted under a section entitled
>>> something like: "Companies that advertise Wikipedia editing services that
>>> have no disclosures on Wikipedia".  If a company starts to disclose then
>>> of
>>> course the listing could be modified.
>>>
>>> This is something that editors ~could~ do, but as the ToU are issued by
>>> the
>>> WMF, it would seem more appropriate for WMF to do.
>>>
>>> But I am interested to hear Legal's perspective.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Jacob Rogers <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > As I mentioned in my email earlier this month, we've put together a
>>> longer
>>> > statement regarding paid editing and how we see the balance of the
>>> > communities' role and the role that WMF legal can play in these cases.
>>> We
>>> > tried to address the concerns that people have raised to us, and explain
>>> > when it's helpful to contact us to assist on a case. Of note, it does
>>> > explain what actions we can take even in cases that don't involve the
>>> WMF
>>> > trademarks.
>>> >
>>> > You can find it here: Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and
>>> > outing
>>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_
>>> > Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing>
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Jacob
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > Jacob Rogers
>>> > Legal Counsel
>>> > Wikimedia Foundation
>>> >
>>> > NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
>>> > information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
>>> > delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
>>> > Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal
>>> advice
>>> > to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
>>> > members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please
>>> see
>>> > our legal disclaimer
>>> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James Heilman
>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>>
>> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
>> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

GorillaWarfare
In reply to this post by Jacob Rogers
The Arbitration Committee has just published a response to this statement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing

– Molly (GorillaWarfare)

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Jacob Rogers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As I mentioned in my email earlier this month, we've put together a longer
> statement regarding paid editing and how we see the balance of the
> communities' role and the role that WMF legal can play in these cases. We
> tried to address the concerns that people have raised to us, and explain
> when it's helpful to contact us to assist on a case. Of note, it does
> explain what actions we can take even in cases that don't involve the WMF
> trademarks.
>
> You can find it here: Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and
> outing
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing>
>
> Best,
> Jacob
> --
>
> Jacob Rogers
> Legal Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
> information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
> delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
> Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice
> to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
> members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see
> our legal disclaimer
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ArbCom-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Jytdog at Wikipedia
I just want to note that the question i raised here was about what WMF itself was doing about paid editing.

I was unhappy to see so much in that statement about what the community can/should do.  

I agree with the Arbcom statement that while it is good that Legal noted that its comments about en-wiki were advisory only, the statement fails to deal adequately with OUTING in en-wiki.  The issue is not easy and to be frank the content in the statement about that was disappointingly not carefully thought-through.  The objections were very easy to foresee.  

I hope legal will revise it.

On Jan 26, 2017, at 2:45 PM, GorillaWarfare <[hidden email]> wrote:

The Arbitration Committee has just published a response to this statement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing

– Molly (GorillaWarfare)

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Jacob Rogers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As I mentioned in my email earlier this month, we've put together a longer
> statement regarding paid editing and how we see the balance of the
> communities' role and the role that WMF legal can play in these cases. We
> tried to address the concerns that people have raised to us, and explain
> when it's helpful to contact us to assist on a case. Of note, it does
> explain what actions we can take even in cases that don't involve the WMF
> trademarks.
>
> You can find it here: Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and
> outing
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing>
>
> Best,
> Jacob
> --
>
> Jacob Rogers
> Legal Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
> information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
> delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
> Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice
> to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
> members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see
> our legal disclaimer
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ArbCom-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Pine W
In reply to this post by GorillaWarfare
GorillaWarfare,

Thank you for the statement.

Perhaps you and your colleagues at Arbcom could explain your current
efforts against COI editing when evidence of such activity is brought to
your attention in private (in alignment with current ENWP Arbcom guidance),
and also what more you think could be done to address the problem.

I agree that harassment also is a problem, and I would not condone "false
flag" accusations of paid editing as an excuse to effectively dox another
editor.

At the same time, it seems to me that our current systems and resources for
addressing both COI editing and harassment are insufficient. WMF is working
on the harassment issue, both in SuSa and in Community Tech, and that work
may have some spillover benefits into the work that attempts to address COI
editing. I am wondering if you would agree with my previous comments to the
effect that WMF should also take a more active role in pursuing paid
editors, and enforcing financial penalties against them as a deterrent
against engaging in activity that violates the TOS and sucks up countless
hours of high-skill volunteer time in investigations and remediation.

Thanks,

Pine

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:45 AM, GorillaWarfare <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> The Arbitration Committee has just published a response to this statement:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#
> Response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing
>
> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Jacob Rogers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As I mentioned in my email earlier this month, we've put together a
> longer
> > statement regarding paid editing and how we see the balance of the
> > communities' role and the role that WMF legal can play in these cases. We
> > tried to address the concerns that people have raised to us, and explain
> > when it's helpful to contact us to assist on a case. Of note, it does
> > explain what actions we can take even in cases that don't involve the WMF
> > trademarks.
> >
> > You can find it here: Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and
> > outing
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikimedia_
> Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing>
> >
> > Best,
> > Jacob
> > --
> >
> > Jacob Rogers
> > Legal Counsel
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged
> > information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please
> > delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the
> > Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal
> advice
> > to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
> > members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please
> see
> > our legal disclaimer
> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ArbCom-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

GorillaWarfare
Pine,

We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid editing
based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to act on
them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an
incredible amount of work, and we open ourselves up personally to legal
risk by doing so. I believe there was some discussion on this onwiki around
six months ago, I will try to dig up a link.

– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Gordon Joly
On 27/01/17 16:59, GorillaWarfare wrote:

> Pine,
>
> We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid editing
> based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to act on
> them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an
> incredible amount of work, and we open ourselves up personally to legal
> risk by doing so. I believe there was some discussion on this onwiki around
> six months ago, I will try to dig up a link.
>
> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> _______________________________________________
>


Are these examples of "paid to edit"?

https://www.peopleperhour.com/hourlie/create-a-wikipedia-page/31502

https://www.peopleperhour.com/hourlie/create-a-classy-wikipedia-page/332166

https://www.peopleperhour.com/hourlie/write-and-edit-wikipedia-page/322274

https://www.peopleperhour.com/hourlie/write-create-a-wikipedia-page/335913

https://www.peopleperhour.com/hourlie/wikipedia-page-writing-service-create-your-brand-page-on-wikipedia-for-marketing/245953


Gordo


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

GorillaWarfare
In reply to this post by GorillaWarfare
Following up, this is the conversation I was remembering:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_11

– Molly (GorillaWarfare)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, GorillaWarfare <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pine,
>
> We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid editing
> based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to act on
> them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an
> incredible amount of work, and we open ourselves up personally to legal
> risk by doing so. I believe there was some discussion on this onwiki around
> six months ago, I will try to dig up a link.
>
> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Sydney Poore
Thanks, Molly. I encouraged people interested in understanding the
different views on the topic as it relates to Wikipedia English (and
perhaps other wikis) to read this discussion.

Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Co-founder Kentucky Wikimedians,
Co-founder WikiWomen User Group,
Co-founder WikiConference North America
Board member of Wiki Project Med Foundation,
Member of Simple Annual Plan Grant Committee





On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:11 PM, GorillaWarfare <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Following up, this is the conversation I was remembering:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_11
>
> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, GorillaWarfare <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Pine,
> >
> > We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid editing
> > based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to act
> on
> > them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an
> > incredible amount of work, and we open ourselves up personally to legal
> > risk by doing so. I believe there was some discussion on this onwiki
> around
> > six months ago, I will try to dig up a link.
> >
> > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

jmh649
If one submits material regarding undisclosed paid editing to arbcom and
there is no reply, it is fairly obvious that few cases would continue to be
submitted. Expecially when arbcom makes it clear they have no desire to do
this follow up.

J

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Sydney Poore <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Thanks, Molly. I encouraged people interested in understanding the
> different views on the topic as it relates to Wikipedia English (and
> perhaps other wikis) to read this discussion.
>
> Sydney
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Co-founder Kentucky Wikimedians,
> Co-founder WikiWomen User Group,
> Co-founder WikiConference North America
> Board member of Wiki Project Med Foundation,
> Member of Simple Annual Plan Grant Committee
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:11 PM, GorillaWarfare <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Following up, this is the conversation I was remembering:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_11
> >
> > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, GorillaWarfare <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Pine,
> > >
> > > We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid
> editing
> > > based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to
> act
> > on
> > > them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an
> > > incredible amount of work, and we open ourselves up personally to legal
> > > risk by doing so. I believe there was some discussion on this onwiki
> > around
> > > six months ago, I will try to dig up a link.
> > >
> > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Pine W
Thanks for the link, GorillaWarfare.

I've heard comments similar to James' from others, indicating that people
have lost faith that Arbcom will investigate and take action based on
evidence of COI editing submitted in private to Arbcom. If, as you say,
Arbcom finds that investigating these reports requires a ton of work and
that investigations are prone to error, then it seems to me that we should
be looking at addressing this problem in new ways, such as my proposal that
WMF become much more active in enforcing the TOS in these kinds of
situations and in deterring this kind of misconduct.

Pine


On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If one submits material regarding undisclosed paid editing to arbcom and
> there is no reply, it is fairly obvious that few cases would continue to be
> submitted. Expecially when arbcom makes it clear they have no desire to do
> this follow up.
>
> J
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Sydney Poore <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Molly. I encouraged people interested in understanding the
> > different views on the topic as it relates to Wikipedia English (and
> > perhaps other wikis) to read this discussion.
> >
> > Sydney
> >
> > Sydney Poore
> > User:FloNight
> > Co-founder Kentucky Wikimedians,
> > Co-founder WikiWomen User Group,
> > Co-founder WikiConference North America
> > Board member of Wiki Project Med Foundation,
> > Member of Simple Annual Plan Grant Committee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:11 PM, GorillaWarfare <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Following up, this is the conversation I was remembering:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_11
> > >
> > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, GorillaWarfare <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pine,
> > > >
> > > > We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid
> > editing
> > > > based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to
> > act
> > > on
> > > > them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an
> > > > incredible amount of work, and we open ourselves up personally to
> legal
> > > > risk by doing so. I believe there was some discussion on this onwiki
> > > around
> > > > six months ago, I will try to dig up a link.
> > > >
> > > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Pine W
I'm bumping this thread because there has been a somewhat high-profile
incident of misuse of Wikipedia by a corporate entity.

This is not entirely the same as undisclosed paid editing, but it was
certainly a misuse of Wikipedia.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/12/15259400/burger-king-google-home-ad-wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=773807497&oldid=773585358

It seems to me that this kind of behavior, and accompanying waste of
Wikimedia volunteers' time, is likely to continue until WMF Legal cracks
down and starts making it financially painful for organizations to misuse
Wikipedia in all their various creative and inappropriate ways.

A quote from
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/clever-burger-king-ad-attempts-to-hijack-google-home-devices-2017-04-12:
“Burger King saw an opportunity to do something exciting with the emerging
technology of intelligent personal assistant devices,” a Burger King
spokesperson said. I would like for WMF to make Burger King feel that their
misuse of WIkipedia was inappropriate and for WMF to hit them where it
counts -- in their checkbook -- and with enough force that corporations
will decide that messing with Wikipedia is both ethically wrong and
financially not worth the risk. WMF needs to change marketers' thinking
from the idea that messing with Wikipedia is "an opportunity" to "a big
risk." I would like to see WMF Legal get energized about cracking down on
these kinds of situations, and I'd be happy to have WMF make an expensive
example of Burger King to deter misconduct by others.

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Risker
Without getting into the details of the situation, Pine, I'll simply point
out that the budget for the legal team of an international corporation like
Burger King is going to be significantly larger than the entire budget of
the Wikimedia Foundation, and punishing organizations that have figured out
a way to trigger a voice-activated software program to obtain information
that is likely to come from Wikipedia articles doesn't really seem to be
within scope. I do not see why you would advocate spending the WMF's tiny
Legal Department budget like this, instead of on copyright reform, or
assisting in prosecuting those harassing members of our community, or
preventing others from claiming they are directly related to the Wikimedia
Foundation or its projects; all of these are entirely on-mission.

There's nothing there to sue them for, anyway - it's open-licensed content
that anyone can use in any way they see fit, including for commercial
purposes.  Indeed, that's exactly what Google does on its own search
results, every day, all day - and it's exactly why the Burger King "trick"
works, too. They're taking advantage of the Google interface, knowing that
it is most likely to search Wikipedia for the information requested.  But
there's not as much vitriol directed at Google, because after all it was
Google bumping Wikipedia up in its search result algorithms that has (in
large part) driven the popularity of  the Wikipedia projects.  There's not
even a genuine attribution issue; as I recall, Alexa says "From Wikipedia"
at either the beginning or the end of its report.

In other words, I'm hard-pressed to see why you would want the WMF to take
legal action against a company that is using Wikipedia as intended.  Okay,
it's not my favourite way of using it....but this is exactly how it's
intended to be used. I regularly see links to Wikipedia articles in
mainstream media, not to mention twitter and facebook news reports. Just
think if someone says "OK Google, what is Neurocysticercosis?" or "OK
Google, who's Charlie Murphy?" to reflect two news stories I learned about
today. I got to the Wikipedia articles on both of those subjects by
following links in online reports by commercial news outlets.

Risker/Anne

On 13 April 2017 at 00:01, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm bumping this thread because there has been a somewhat high-profile
> incident of misuse of Wikipedia by a corporate entity.
>
> This is not entirely the same as undisclosed paid editing, but it was
> certainly a misuse of Wikipedia.
>
> https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/12/15259400/burger-king-
> google-home-ad-wikipedia
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=
> 773807497&oldid=773585358
>
> It seems to me that this kind of behavior, and accompanying waste of
> Wikimedia volunteers' time, is likely to continue until WMF Legal cracks
> down and starts making it financially painful for organizations to misuse
> Wikipedia in all their various creative and inappropriate ways.
>
> A quote from
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/clever-burger-king-ad-
> attempts-to-hijack-google-home-devices-2017-04-12:
> “Burger King saw an opportunity to do something exciting with the emerging
> technology of intelligent personal assistant devices,” a Burger King
> spokesperson said. I would like for WMF to make Burger King feel that their
> misuse of WIkipedia was inappropriate and for WMF to hit them where it
> counts -- in their checkbook -- and with enough force that corporations
> will decide that messing with Wikipedia is both ethically wrong and
> financially not worth the risk. WMF needs to change marketers' thinking
> from the idea that messing with Wikipedia is "an opportunity" to "a big
> risk." I would like to see WMF Legal get energized about cracking down on
> these kinds of situations, and I'd be happy to have WMF make an expensive
> example of Burger King to deter misconduct by others.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

jmh649
Looking at the Burger King case:

I do not have a concern with the ad they created to have Google read the WP
article about their product.

My concern is them possibly altering the first sentence of said article.
But we now have that under control and it was a fairly innocuous in the
grand scheme of undisclosed paid editing.

James

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Without getting into the details of the situation, Pine, I'll simply point
> out that the budget for the legal team of an international corporation like
> Burger King is going to be significantly larger than the entire budget of
> the Wikimedia Foundation, and punishing organizations that have figured out
> a way to trigger a voice-activated software program to obtain information
> that is likely to come from Wikipedia articles doesn't really seem to be
> within scope. I do not see why you would advocate spending the WMF's tiny
> Legal Department budget like this, instead of on copyright reform, or
> assisting in prosecuting those harassing members of our community, or
> preventing others from claiming they are directly related to the Wikimedia
> Foundation or its projects; all of these are entirely on-mission.
>
> There's nothing there to sue them for, anyway - it's open-licensed content
> that anyone can use in any way they see fit, including for commercial
> purposes.  Indeed, that's exactly what Google does on its own search
> results, every day, all day - and it's exactly why the Burger King "trick"
> works, too. They're taking advantage of the Google interface, knowing that
> it is most likely to search Wikipedia for the information requested.  But
> there's not as much vitriol directed at Google, because after all it was
> Google bumping Wikipedia up in its search result algorithms that has (in
> large part) driven the popularity of  the Wikipedia projects.  There's not
> even a genuine attribution issue; as I recall, Alexa says "From Wikipedia"
> at either the beginning or the end of its report.
>
> In other words, I'm hard-pressed to see why you would want the WMF to take
> legal action against a company that is using Wikipedia as intended.  Okay,
> it's not my favourite way of using it....but this is exactly how it's
> intended to be used. I regularly see links to Wikipedia articles in
> mainstream media, not to mention twitter and facebook news reports. Just
> think if someone says "OK Google, what is Neurocysticercosis?" or "OK
> Google, who's Charlie Murphy?" to reflect two news stories I learned about
> today. I got to the Wikipedia articles on both of those subjects by
> following links in online reports by commercial news outlets.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 13 April 2017 at 00:01, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I'm bumping this thread because there has been a somewhat high-profile
> > incident of misuse of Wikipedia by a corporate entity.
> >
> > This is not entirely the same as undisclosed paid editing, but it was
> > certainly a misuse of Wikipedia.
> >
> > https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/12/15259400/burger-king-
> > google-home-ad-wikipedia
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=
> > 773807497&oldid=773585358
> >
> > It seems to me that this kind of behavior, and accompanying waste of
> > Wikimedia volunteers' time, is likely to continue until WMF Legal cracks
> > down and starts making it financially painful for organizations to misuse
> > Wikipedia in all their various creative and inappropriate ways.
> >
> > A quote from
> > http://www.marketwatch.com/story/clever-burger-king-ad-
> > attempts-to-hijack-google-home-devices-2017-04-12:
> > “Burger King saw an opportunity to do something exciting with the
> emerging
> > technology of intelligent personal assistant devices,” a Burger King
> > spokesperson said. I would like for WMF to make Burger King feel that
> their
> > misuse of WIkipedia was inappropriate and for WMF to hit them where it
> > counts -- in their checkbook -- and with enough force that corporations
> > will decide that messing with Wikipedia is both ethically wrong and
> > financially not worth the risk. WMF needs to change marketers' thinking
> > from the idea that messing with Wikipedia is "an opportunity" to "a big
> > risk." I would like to see WMF Legal get energized about cracking down on
> > these kinds of situations, and I'd be happy to have WMF make an expensive
> > example of Burger King to deter misconduct by others.
> >
> > Pine
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123
Loading...