Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing

Need links to past discussions

There have been multiple discussions about this in multiple places. If links to those discussions are not already collected then here and now would be a good time to start compiling them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

List of discussions

• There is one on Facebook but I am not sure if I am allowed to link to it. Please feel free to fill in if that one is okay.
• There is also one on Wikimedia-l, I do not know if I am allowed to link to that either.
• Main discussion is here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Response to the Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing
• Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy

Off of?

"...information about an editor off of Wikipedia" makes no sense to me me. But then I am British... Could someone clarify what this means? — Iadmc♫^talk  03:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Iadmc. Onwiki means it is/was posted on a Wikimedia project. Offwiki means on somebody else's server, or in real life. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've edited the project page to reflect this. "Off of" is poor English and meaningless to many (such as me). Hope my edits are acceptable — Iadmc♫^talk  06:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Iadmc: I've reverted your changes because while I think we could perhaps assume "off of wiki" means an "editor's online activities and life outside of editing Wikipedia", this is not expressly verified by WMF legal. We should be careful not to potentially affect the meaning of their words to fix a grammatical issue even if it's not ideally worded. Mkdw ^talk 06:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mkdw:Fair enough — Iadmc♫^talk  07:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"Off of" means "off". See for example grammarist or English Stackexchange. "Off of" is an American usage. I am making the change again. When legal brings an essay to ENWP it is subject to editing like any other text here. Using international rather than American English seems like a fair proposal. Anyone could revert, but I am not ready to accept "nothing written by legal can change" as a rationale without more explanation. I would like to keep wiki as egalitarian and open to WP:BRD as possible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No one said "nothing written by legal can change". Who are you quoting? No one, certainly not myself, was implying that statement either. I was cautioning changing the meaning of what was written, to something possibly different, and cited no rules that the page as a whole could not be edited. The discussion above was not in opposition or an attack to the principal of editing essays on Wikipedia -- and that was not what was being discussed. Mkdw ^talk 15:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. Perhaps everything is cool now with the change, unless anyone has anything else to say. Sorry. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Bluerasberry: @Mkdw: Hm. Another editor has seen the change and changed "off" to "of", presumably thinking it was a typo. Perhaps I've open a can of worms... sorry about that. Thanks for your contributions though! — Iadmc♫^talk  18:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice essay

Hi. This is a nice essay, thank you for posting it. I'm torn as to whether this page more appropriately belongs here on the English Wikipedia or on Meta-Wiki [meta.wikimedia.org]. Meta-Wiki is typically a more traditional venue, but this page seems rather specific to the English Wikipedia and its harassment policy? Of course, we also have wikimediafoundation.org, blog.wikimedia.org, and policy.wikimedia.org, the latter two of which are often used as venues for personal essays. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, and if this is a statement, as the current page title suggests, it should probably be dated? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I, also, would like to thank WMF Legal for providing this information. It is truly very helpful to the community, here specifically at en-wiki, in figuring out how to design our own policies. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

+1 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

How long are records kept by the WMF and who can see them?

The essay confirms that "we collect information about paid editing whenever reports are sent to us or flagged to us". There should be good governance of records created for analysis and sometimes speculative negative research on accounts which have been alleged to be editing with conflict of interest. This means that it should be clear who can access the database of records and for what reasons, in which situations the WMF can share these records and allegations with others (such as Wikipedia volunteers, speculated employers, or national authorities) and how long the WMF will retain records before they are destroyed. It would be healthy for someone from WMF legal to make definitive statements about these areas of governance. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC

Listed at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Investigating_COI_policy. Vote away.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Response from English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee

There's a response posted here from the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=762170486#Response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing>. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Request

Hi User:Slaporte (WMF) and User:Jrogers (WMF). First, thanks for posting this.

Some comments.

• It is not clear to me exactly what drove this - there is no agent in the passive-voice statement, "WMF Legal has been asked to clarify our role ....." Am not asking for a response, but just noting that. I asked at wikimedia-l what Legal itself has been authorized to do, to take action with respect to companies that offer paid editing services but which have no disclosures in Wikipedia. I did not ask for WMF's thoughts about what the community can or should do about that.

• The placement of the "just advisory" statement is awkward. I expect WMF Legal to speak authoritatively about WMF matters. You know WMF policy and how it applies to WMF activities and how it reads on obligations that communities have (the various things specified in the ToU), and you know what you yourselves are doing with respect to direct enforcement of the ToU.

• I took the "just advisory" statement as relevant to your comments in "The communities' role" section. (That section title is confusing btw - you posted this on en-WP and there is only one community here). But about that section. I was dismayed to find that here at all. It is not what I asked for (I don't know if this was a response at all to my inquiries) and it is something that I actively didn't want for two main reasons. The first being that the en-WP community has many discussions about navigating ToU policing/enforcement and OUTING - this is not an issue we are neglecting, and those discussions are already very complex and raise strong emotions in the community. The second being that when WMF does intervene in community affairs that action itself often raises an entirely separate set of complex issues and strong emotions. Even when it is "just advice".

I don't know if you were asked, or if you decided, to address the communities' role... but you did. Based on what Arbcom has written, you ran drafts by Arbcom, and that process apparently became a negotiation, and Arbcom apparently ended up unhappy with the statement. To the point that now Arbcom has issued their own statement, which is (in my view) partially advocacy with respect to en-WP discussions about changing en-WP policy, and is a "counterpoint" to your statement. Which is very problematic, in my view.

So, an issue that was already difficult and emotional in en-WP, has now had entirely new and even more charged layers of difficulty added to it. The issues are harder now.

WMF legal of course has the right to make whatever statements it wants. But this one is not helpful, in my view. I am requesting here that you simply remove "The communities' role" section from this document. Would you please consider doing that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please also note the comment here. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This part of the statement is very useful "We also think that some degree of transparency in investigations helps the communities do a better job combating undisclosed paid editing." This is supporting common practice which some appear to be trying to end.

I am not seeing how this makes things harder. Yes things are hard. We have been at a standstill for a few years now. This has resumed discussion which is good IMO.

We have many editors supporting something (an additional private mechanism to deal with evidence regarding UPE) which they were against not that long ago. So maybe progress... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

A related note

In the discussions following WMF's posting of this statement, the community has been having difficulty with resolving the "just advisory" label with meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure#Can a local project adopt an alternative disclosure policy for paid editing?, which sounds, at least to me, like a required procedure for enacting an alternative policy. It would be very helpful if WMF could clarify the extent to which the language about outing not being a valid excuse for undisclosed paid editing, is or is not something that the English Wikipedia can alter only by way of following that alternative policy procedure at meta. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

In my view, there is a very clumsy sentence in this statement, namely: It’s also important to remember that WP:OUTING can’t be used as a way to avoid the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use: if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements.

This is creating a lot of confusion.

• Fact: the ToU says that the paid editor must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation.
• Fact: The ToU says nothing about third parties (the paid editor and the WMF being the two parties to the ToU) posting that information.
• Fact: the community has generally interpreted its OUTING policy to mean that posting any information about an editor, that the editor does not self-disclose on Wikipedia, to be OUTING
• Fact: with regard to the first part of the quoted sentence (prior to the colon) - the en-Wiki community has already said that an editor cannot duck the ToU because it is obligates the editor to OUT themselves. See this old ANI discussion and particularly this summarizing section.
• The second part of this sentence (after the colon) is the clumsy part that is causing problems, which Trypto is asking you to clarify.
  • Some editors are interpreting that part to mean that WMF Legal is "advising" that the ToU obligates admins to post an editor's "employer, client, and affiliation" even if they haven't, as a valid remedy for not complying with the ToU
  • Further, what Trypto is articulating, is that some folks seem to be saying that if the en-WIki community doesn't allow at least admins to post this information, then it needs to put an alternative WP:PAID policy in place through an RfC. Which is another way of saying that the ToU obligates admins to post an editor's "employer, client, and affiliation" even if they haven't.
  • Some folks are also saying, that WMF Legal is advising that because an undisclosed paid editor has no right not to post that information, a third party posting it cannot be "OUTING"

This is a real mess. I don't agree with any of that stuff above - I believe WMF Legal was simply suggesting that admins could post that information. Simply indefinitely blocking or banning an undisclosed paid editor is plenty enough remedy, and the community already does this.

Please do not clarify this and just withdraw it. If WMF legal goes deeper yet into intra-community policy matters, it is only going to make things more convoluted, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC) (struck and put in own section to try to meet Trypto's request below Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC))

This is not completely correct "the community has generally interpreted its OUTING policy to mean that posting any information about an editor, that the editor does not self-disclose on Wikipedia, to be OUTING" or at least "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis" also applies and the community is completely divided on the "no links ever" bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I posted this query, below the section break, as a question to WMF more than as a starting point for yet more discussion among en-Wiki editors, and I kind of feel that Jytdog is inserting his own interpretations into my question. I asked what I asked, and not what Jytdog says that I asked, and I do not necessarily agree with his conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough Trypto. I believe i "unpacked" the question you asked. If there are different underlying assumptions please state them. I remain startled by the notion that what WMF Legal wrote suggests that if en-wiki doesn't allow third parties to post "employer, client, and affiliation" for undisclosed paid editors, then en-wiki is not implementing the ToU as they are stated and needs to create a new policy of its own. Disclosing on behalf of someone else is not the only valid enforcement of the ToU; blocking/banning is as well - one that we already do. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to ask your own question, then ask it. I believe that I already stated all the "underlying assumptions" that I want to state. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Doc James that sentence does not have strong consensus behind it. In this RfC: RfC: should the policy extend harassment to include posting ANY other accounts on ANY other websites?, the community rejected a complete ban on ever posting off-wiki evidence in WP, and led to the "case by case" language being added instead. But then in this RFC: Can other site accounts ever be linked to the community didn't endorse the case by case language. The community has not articulated what it wants on this issue. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the communities position on this is unclear. The community did reject a complete ban on ever posting off-wiki evidence. Is useful to restate this every time it is make out that their is consensus otherwise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes! Messy; not black and white. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on Trypto's question to WMF

In my view, there is a very clumsy sentence in the WMF statement, namely: It’s also important to remember that WP:OUTING can’t be used as a way to avoid the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use: if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements.

This is creating a lot of confusion.

• Fact: the ToU says that the paid editor must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation.
• Fact: The ToU says nothing about third parties (the paid editor and the WMF being the two parties to the ToU) posting that information.
• Fact: the community has generally interpreted its OUTING policy to mean that posting any information about an editor, that the editor does not self-disclose on Wikipedia, to be OUTING
• Fact: with regard to the first part of the quoted sentence (prior to the colon) - the en-Wiki community has already said that an editor cannot duck the ToU because it is obligates the editor to OUT themselves. See this old ANI discussion and particularly this summarizing section.
• The second part of this sentence (after the colon) is the clumsy part that is causing problems, which in my view, is what Trypto is asking you to clarify.
  • Some editors are interpreting that part to mean that WMF Legal is "advising" that the ToU obligates admins to post an editor's "employer, client, and affiliation" even if they haven't, as a valid remedy for not complying with the ToU
  • Further, what (in my view) Trypto is articulating, is that some folks seem to be saying that if the en-WIki community doesn't allow at least admins to post this information, then it needs to put an alternative WP:PAID policy in place through an RfC. Which is another way of saying that the ToU obligates admins to post an editor's "employer, client, and affiliation" even if they haven't.

This is a real mess. I don't agree with any of that stuff above (maybe I am misinterpreting things of course) - I believe WMF Legal was simply suggesting that admins could post that information. Simply indefinitely blocking or banning an undisclosed paid editor is plenty enough remedy, and the community already does this.

Some folks are also saying, that WMF Legal is advising that because an undisclosed paid editor has no right not to post that information, a third party posting it cannot be "OUTING". (In my view, this is an intriguing argument and one that should be discussed a lot more, and it relates to threads in past discussions about better defining different kinds of off-wiki information and putting them in different classes, like "protected" vs "unprotected" with respect to OUTING. (started discussion here)

But really... please do not clarify this and just withdraw it. If WMF legal goes deeper yet into intra-community policy matters, it is only going to make things more convoluted, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)