Talk:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Italian Wikipedia[edit]

I advise the Wikimedia Foundation to respect legal rights of the users (as set by a contract, in this case). You know what happens when you don't. --Nemo 15:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nemo, my understanding is that the Italian Wikipedia discussion on writing an alternative disclosure policy is still ongoing. Until there is a consensus-based decision to adopt a policy as an alternative to the disclosure requirement in the Terms of Use, please do not add it to this page. I am going to revert your edits here, and politely ask that you add the Italian policy only after a new consensus has been reached, and then only on the talk page first. Thanks, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not just that: the existing policy doesn't even mention disclosure, so it is a paid contribution policy, not a paid contribution disclosure one, and on the top of that users have so far stated they're fine with the global one. --Elitre (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Elitre, that's your opinion as you asked revising the existing policy, but discussion is ongoing on that proposal. Stephen, as long as the policy is marked policy it means there is consensus; I've already asked on talk page whether the status but nothing has changed. --Nemo 07:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the discussion is over: I said that (actually except for you and me!) everybody on that page so far seems to be fine with the WMF change, at least last time I checked. And yes, there is obviously consensus that it's it.wp policy about *paid contribution policy*, not about *paid contribution disclosure policy*. since *it doesn't mention disclosure at all*. I'm pretty sure you understood this point as well since the beginning, so I'm not sure why you're behaving like you didn't :) So far the only disclosure part which applies to it.wp is the WMF one *since it.wp didn't write/approve a different one*, so listing the other policy here is only misleading the users. --Elitre (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me confirm what Elitre explained. Until there is a census to adopt this policy as an alternative disclosure requirement for the Terms of Use, please do not add this page. I do think it is helpful to maintain a comparison of various similar community policies, so the ITWP link is a good addition to List of policies related to paid editing or Conflict of interest editing. Thanks, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, since there still seems to be some confusion: the edit Jorge made was correct. The Spanish policy that he moved to the related policies page was adopted in 2011 and so does not belong on this page until it is reconfirmed/rediscussed by the community. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo, Nemo bis, Slaporte (WMF), and LuisV (WMF): I've removed Nemo bis's 2016 edit. I don't see that there has been any change in the Italian policy related to paid editing, so the ToU stands as is there. What is needed is a specific *new policy* that references the ToU requirements and specifically changes them on the Italian Wikipedia. Anything less should not be listed here. WMF folks - please correct me if I'm wrong. Smallbones (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, checking around a bit more, there is a policy in Italian that confirms the ToU see [1]:

"Declare their conflict of interest

If you have received or expect to receive an assignment from third parties to contribute to Wikipedia in Italian, you must explicitly declare your conflict of interest in the manner prescribed by the terms of use , you accept before saving any changes. To do this, you will need to indicate who (employer or client) you instructed to edit Wikipedia in Italian .

Notification should be made in at least one of the following ways:

  • a statement to be included in your user page ;
  • a statement to be included in the discussion of the item page that accompany all contributions made ​​on commission;
  • a statement to be included in the "object" tag that accompanies each contribution made ​​on commission.

Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the blocking of your users and / or cancellation of the modifications you have made."


There's no need to consider this as an "alternative policy" as it confirms the ToU and perhaps toughens it a bit (as envisioned in the ToU FAQs)

Smallbones (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can think whatever you want but how administrators enforce policy is more important. Feel free to go convince the Italian Wikipedia administrators that you have a better grasp of the policies than they have. Nemo 13:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I can't find anything that looks like an alternative policy or any discussion that says that the Italian policy which affirms the ToU is in anyway an alternative policy. You have to follow the ToU on to make an alternative policy, otherwise there is no alternative policy. Italian admins do not have the ability to change the ToU by themselves. Have an RfC to make an alternative policy if you'd like, but otherwise the ToU apply. @Nemo, Nemo bis, Slaporte (WMF), and LuisV (WMF):
Smallbones (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The terms of use are followed, because the policies have been approved by the community in the most formal way possible; Italian Wikipedia admins are not claiming to have changed the ToU. --Nemo 18:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of us is completely missing the point. The FAQs linked on the content page state "To adopt a pre-existing policy as an alternative disclosure policy, a project community must gain consensus specifically to replace the paid editing disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use with the policy of the project." and that also applies for any alternative disclosure policy. Please just show me specifically where this "alternative policy" was adopted. It's not in the links you provided.
If you disagree that a formal approval of an alternative policy is needed, please don't edit war over putting in the non-alternative policy. We can take it to WMF legal after the New Year. But in any case I will remove any so-called "alternative policy" if you can't show me a specific link where the policy has been formally approved

Smallbones (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A FAQ has no legal value so I'm not going to discuss about it. Nemo 10:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring without reasoning. The policy won't change just because you decline accepting reality; go discuss with the administrators if you have problems with reality, instead of shooting the messenger. Nemo 14:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please just give a link to the supposed alternative policy and the page with a discussion where it was approved. Better yet please ask an Italian admin to comment here and provide the above two links. Smallbones (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a great policy 

Adammiller1234 (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: Hi, here's the policy enforced on it.wiki. It has been approved a couple of years ago. So, the users have to declare their conflict of interest. Moreover, the usernames that suggest they are an "official account" of a company are blocked, see Aiuto:Nome utente --Ruthven (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Wikipedia[edit]

I see the Spanish Wikipedia was added to this list. However, I am having difficulty understanding what in that policy supersedes the WMF's policy. It seems, from the section referenced, that Spanish Wikipedia requires specifically that the disclosure be made on the user page, rather than offering a choice of user page, article talk page, or edit summary. However, if that is the case, the example drawn from English Wikipedia is a rather misleading one. Can somebody, perhaps @Rndmdf:, offer any insight here? -Pete F (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WMF agrees; so we've moved it to the related policies page. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. What do you mean with misleading, @Peteforsyth:?. Why the spanish wikipedia was deleted of the list? Then in the spanish Wikipedia which policy applies, terms of use or this? Thanks in advance.--Rndmdf (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rndmdf I don't know why it was moved, I was just looking for some clarification. But the reason I said it might be misleading is because that specific example from English Wikipedia appears to illustrate something where Spanish Wikipedia's policy is not met -- unless I'm misunderstanding something. -Pete F (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rndmdf: We moved it because we want to keep this page focused on policies that specifically refer to the new policy. We think this will help make sure that all communities have a chance to respond to this proposal. It should also help make sure that the relationship of the two policies is clear. For policies written before the new policy, it will always be somewhat unclear if they replace, supplement, or otherwise modify the main policy.
Spanish Wikipedia is of course welcome to review and discuss the old policy again, and at that time we're happy to have it added here. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LuisV (WMF), this is a surprise -- could you expand on why it will be unclear? To me it seems very clear: the Terms of Use (as adopted several years ago) require users to abide by policies of a project; Spanish Wikipedia seems to have a clear policy requiring disclosure on the user page. By complying with that policy, the end user also necessarily complies with the updated ToU, since the user page is the first of the three options presented there.
Is there a problem with my analysis? If not, where is the lack of clarity? And why would it be worthwhile for Spanish Wikipedians to undertake the not-insignificant task of opening a new discussion on the topic? -Pete F (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pete, if complying with the local policy will satisfy the Terms of Use, then practically that may be useful to keep track of on the List of policies related to paid editing. Ideally, this page would be a central place to keep track of the various rules and suggestions on paid editing. However, the Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies page should be limited to policies that have been adopted by the community, through a proper consensus procedure, to replace the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use. That is not the case for the Spanish policy, since it predates the amendment to the Terms of Use. Thanks, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LuisV (WMF) Now Spanish Wikipedia does not require disclosure of the client, only requires the company contracting the user in the user page. According ToU:
A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.
applies Spanish Wikipedia policy, or not?. What policy should be applied? Spanish Wikipedia or terms of use? Thanks.--Rndmdf (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rndmdf, the Terms of Use apply in this case. The idea is that the requirements in the amended terms of use apply, unless a project has decided to set an alternative policy. You can read more information in the FAQ, which hopefully makes this process a little more clear. Thanks, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Aide:Contributions rémunérées[edit]

As discussed on fr:Discussion aide:Contributions rémunérées#Cette page décrit-elle une « politique alternative de révélation des contributions rémunérées » ?, this help page on the French Wikipedia is not intended to supersede the global policy. It explains it and gives practical recommendations on how to comply with it. Should I move the link to List of policies related to paid editing? Or just clarify it on this page?

Orlodrim (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia paid contribution disclosure guidance[edit]

Regarding this edit: I have started a discussion on listing an alternative policy on meta. Isaacl (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note when the paid contribution disclosure requirement was added to the terms of use, in a discussion on whether or not English Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline was an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy, Stephen LaPorte from WMF Legal wrote, "...no, this guideline is not an alternative disclosure policy contemplated under the Terms of Use. To adopt this as an alternative policy, there would need to be consensus to change the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use. More detail is available in this FAQ. ... the consensus should refer to the Terms of Use to set an alternative. For example, see this proposal pending on commons." The English Wikipedia community has not held a discussion such as the one on Commons where en:w:Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure was approved as an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. isaacl (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been on this page for quite a while, and though the English Wikipedia may not have written their paid contribution disclosure policy with the specific intention of it being alternate to the ToU, it is definitely different than that the ToU requires, and is generally stronger, and discussion around this would be beneficial. Given the length of time the content has been on the page, and the fact that removing it may cause problems with people assuming there is no local paid contribution policy independent of the ToU, I think consensus here should be reached prior to making an edit on the page. As I have made an administrative action here already, I am not going to participate in this discussion myself. Vermont (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think English Wikipedia has stronger consensus-backed requirements than the TOU. (Requirement to disclose in regards to freelance sites.) The consensus status of the rest of the text seems to me to be a dispute that needs to solved locally at enwiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've finally found the proper place to comment on this!!!
The TOU explicitly gives 2 different ways to amend the policy The first involves strengthening the policy beyond the ToU.
"Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." The key here is "May further limit paid contributions". So we may strengthen the policy without getting rid of the base protections of the ToU. That's very important. We retain the ToU when we strengthen the policy, unless we use the second method:
"A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page." The FAQ makes clear that putting in an "alternative" policy, requires "the project's standard consensus-based process for establishing core policies." FAQ
So an alternative policy can completely change or even revoke the policy, unlike the 1st method of strengthening the policy beyond the ToU. This was not done in the policy change referred to here. That strengthened the policy and is valid (under the 1st method), but it is not an "alternative policy" which, in theory could then be changed again to something weaker than the current Tou - without the additional requirements needed under the "alternative policy" paragraph.
In short - this wasn't passed under the method needed to call it an "alternative policy". I would also like to keep the additional protection required by that paragraph. Smallbones (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: I don't know how to tell you this but you fucked up by adding enwiki to the list without explicit local consensus to adopt as an alternative disclosure policy. You should have posted at List of policies related to paid editing, not this page. This page is specifically for policies that supersede the Terms of Use, not policies that just complement it. By adding enwiki's paid contribution policy to this page you're effectively saying that our local policy supersedes the terms of use and the terms of use policy on paid editing is no longer applicable to the English Wikipedia. This is an issue, to say the least, given that you didn't have consensus for that addition. I think we should remove when possible. Chess (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In line with the discussion above, I am going to remove the link from the page. The English Wikipedia's paid editing policy, though stricter than the Terms of Use's requirements for paid editing, is not an alternate paid contribution disclosure policy as described in the Terms of Use. Vermont (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So much for cross-wiki watchlist notifications―I did not realize there had been responses to my initial posts. Thank you very much for removing the list entry. isaacl (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alternative_paid_contribution_disclosure_policies&oldid=24705639"