Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-10-06

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 06 October 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Some comments

Resolved.

Hi, thanks for posting. Some comments:

• Whoa, that was loooong! Would be great if we can shorten it a bit. It is waaaaay longer than the current version.

Yep, I'm getting lots of feedback along those lines. Although it may be difficult to believe, this version is shorter than most user agreements. That said, I will need to figure out how to shorten. How much? I'm not sure yet. Geoffbrigham 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Section 4: "(...) will refrain from (...) Linking to material that violates any provision of this Agreement or any applicable law or regulation;" - this is default behaviour of anyone requesting admin actions or a block. Doesn't seem reasonable in these wordings.

I'm open to different wording here, but the devil is in the details. My concern is that certain kinds of linking arguably create liability for the user. For example, knowingly linking to infringing material or child pornography may raise liability considerations. We could be more to the point and simply ban "Linking to material that violates applicable law," but I'm not sure that satisfies your considerations. I'm open to any proposals here. Geoffbrigham 21:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Geoff, I think something more than rewording is needed here. I think the most compelling case would be the English Wikipedia copyright noticeboard, where ever day, multiple reports are made of suspected copyright violations. When making such a report, any Wikipedian reporting a problem is expected to supply evidence of a violation of Wikipedia policy; and the best way to supply evidence is to link to the alleged violation (on Wikipedia, elsewhere, or both). As written, however, I believe the new Terms of Use would prohibit hundreds of edits per month which are not merely good edits, but are vital to the process of self-policing that makes Wikipedia work. (I also believe it is important to take into consideration editorial linking of copyright violations. I think this clause stands in stark contrast to the Be Bold mantra. We encourage users to make edits even if they don't fully understand copyright law and how it applies to writing an encyclopedia. It's always been the case that the Wikipedia community, not the Foundation, assumes the role of addressing run-of-the-mill copyright violations. It seems this change would amount to declaring that hundreds or thousands of our users every day are out of compliance with our basic terms of use.) -Pete F 18:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)  Done according to me, assuming the changes discussed below (see #linking is not a crime) are implemented. -Pete F 21:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that the laws use much better and extensive definitions for this kind of linking than we ever can hope to provide. I would prefer to leave it out of the TOU, and leave it to the Law to handle - but maybe that is too much of a European approach. If you insist this should and must be part of the TOU, then I could perhaps live with something along the lines of "linking in an illegal manner" (probably natives have more poetic wordings for that) - but again, imho that is re-doing the work that has already been done by law. Effeietsanders 07:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Same section: "...Soliciting personal information from anyone under the age of 18 (...)" - isn't this a bit too broad defined? How do you know someone is under 18 if you're not allowed to ask personal information? :)

Point well taken. We are trying to address improper communications with minors. Maybe we could say: "Soliciting personal information from anyone known to be under the age of 18 for an improper purpose ...." It does leave discretion in enforcement, but at least there needs to be a showing of improper purpose. Will be interested in others' view on that. (Response by Geoff)

Wouldn't it be much easier to just make it general and address improper communication? I'm not so sure we want to support improper communication with women (or men) or basically anyone. Asking for personal information is not really the thing though - that is only one of many ways to get to that point. Effeietsanders 07:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I narrowed this provision to any "illegal purpose." Protection of minors on our site is important, so I want to be clear about this as a fair notice to new users who read the agreement. I understand Effeietsanders' point, which is quite logical, but I think other provisions, such as the ban on harrassment addresses the point somewhat. Geoffbrigham 18:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• What I am missing in section 4 is something like "accessing the edit interface when the community has banned you from doing so" (block evasion).

We could include this to be explicitly clear, but I tend to think it is covered sufficiently in Section 10. Geoffbrigham 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• 7a states Wikinews as example - I believe the language edition should be specified there.

Good point. Overall in the draft document, I think we rely too much on English language examples. If others could suggest non-English examples, that would also be useful. Geoffbrigham 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• I do the way things are worded - generally non-legalese and positive. However, I still hope we can get rid of several clauses.

Effeietsanders 21:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• P.S.: I do think, re-reading, that most of these clauses are stating the obvious and already arranged by law (harrassment, child pornography, viruses etc) - why is it necessary to make it explicit? Isn't it so that those who will bother because it is written, wouldn't do it anyway, and those who dont care... well, don't care? Effeietsanders 21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Geoff will answer, I'm sure, but in the meantime... this gives us additional legal coverage if we need it. If not, it's very easy to say - for instance, if we're in court because someone is mad that we banned them - "but you never told me the standards!" This gives us a very clear time at which we will have told them the standards. It's unarguable. Philippe (WMF) 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That is one of the reasons. Also people actually do modify their conduct once given clear notice of what is allowed and what is not. It goes somewhat to the concept of fair notice. Geoffbrigham 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess that depends :) Personally I am no fan of trying to lock everything down that is a minor legal risk (someone suing us because of being banned? If that is really the problem, we should simply tell them that the community has full liberty for that - much simpler), so unless it is a major issue, I would be in favor of leaving it out. Besides that much of it seems to be covered by the laws anyways. Also, but IANAL, I have some doubts if the applicable law will fly in all countries, especially since there is no real signing of the ToU. I think that in the Netherlands for example, that usually makes them rather useless. Effeietsanders 22:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, user agreements do not need to be signed to be enforceable. I feel that, in most cases where we need it, the user agreement would be enforceable. Geoffbrigham 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you bar a lot of things in the ToS that you plan to ultimately ignore (like admins linking to stuff that violates the ToS, or asking someone about their age because they are running for ArbCom, and subsequently discovering they are under 18, etc.), and doing it purely for legal cover, what happens when in court a plaintiff's attorney lists a thousand times you've declined to enforce the ToS? Nathan ^T 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What happens is they point to the section that says declining to enforce the ToS a thousand times doesn't affect their ability to enforce it in this case - "If in any circumstance we do not apply or enforce any provision of this agreement, it is not a waiver of that provision". This is a well-known issue. -- Seth Finkelstein 07:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually if someone wants to sue us for blocking them, then I think ToS would not stop them, moreover it should not. Of course we don't want to see the foundation sued, as supporters of the projects, but neither do we want to see it immune from suit, as decent human beings. Moreover the situation of a few years ago where even talking to an external lawyer would have eaten most of the years budget no longer holds. I think the foundation can, and should say "We prefer to resolve disagreements amicably, and we have no wish to go to court with anyone, however we defend the right to due process, even of those we disagree with." Rich Farmbrough 14:51 11 September 2011 (GMT).

I generally agree, and we can say that in the user agreement. Indeed, in practice, we spend lots of time working out issues every day without anything closely approaching litigation. We genuinely want to work out people's issues and concerns as long as we can remain faithful to the principles of the Community. In my opinion, a well written user agreement - which spells out the expectations on both sides - will help reduce disputes and litigation. (We can debate the budget issue, but, in my humble opinion, we are still operating on a relatively low budget given the size of the site. Of course, the Community - which has built the Wikimedia projects through its knowledge, creativity, and innovation - is a primary reason we can operate on a smaller budget as an organization. That said, the legal issues are not necessarily smaller or less plentiful as the site grows.) Geoffbrigham 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the prohibition on soliciting "personal information," whatever that is, from someone under 18 is too broad. Personal information is needed when someone asks for certain roles like steward where we don't want a 17 year old to get the job, and biographical information can be very important when discussing a user's level of knowledge of a subject or copyright license claims. Also, this prohibition assumes that the person who "solicits" whatever that means, "personal information" whatever that means, knows that the person that they're communicating with is under 18. Finally, do you want to prohibit teens from sharing contact information with other teens that they meet on Wikipedia? I suggest removing the under-18 language and replacing it with something more specific that applies to all Wikipedians regardless of age, "requesting personally identifiable information for purposes of harassment, exploitation, or violation of privacy, or any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation." There is a significant difference between "personal information" and "personally identifiable information," and personally identifiable information could be requested for legitimate reasons. Pine 23:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have additional suggestions. Have a link in the Terms of Use and elsewhere to online safety information that's relevant for teens and everyone else, like "just because X tells you that he's 13 doesn't mean that he is," "just because his photo looks your age doesn't mean that's him", and "don't ever send or accept money from someone on Wikipedia, and report anyone who asks." Send occasional safety reminders, maybe in the Signpost or other places where lots of people will see them. Pine 04:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea. My only question is whether it should be in the user agreement or in community policies. I would tend to prefer the community policies as the proper venue for this information. Geoffbrigham 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It might actually be a good idea to have an entirely separate page on wikimediafoundation.org that's about online safety with links etc. Then this policy or anyone on the projects could refer to it as a resource. What do you think Pine? Thanks for the comments, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, but I hope there's a way to post regular reminders and updates. Methods for fraud constantly evolve. Also, I need to amend my other comments. You could completely prohibit asking for social security numbers, financial account information including credit card numbers, and passwords of any kind, because there is no circumstance when that information would be needed to evaluate someone's contributions or qualifications. Pine 11:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we really want to take responsibility for our user's on-line safety? We have articles on en:wp - for informational purposes only - that cover phishing, 901 scams, hoaxes, malware etc. Rich Farmbrough 14:59 11 September 2011 (GMT).

Encouraging people to stay safe and providing them helpful information is different than taking responsibility for them, and yes Wikimedia should take some responsibility especially by making reasonable efforts to prevent malware from being hosted or linked from Wikimedia and by protecting User privacy and passwords including warning users of any phishing, fraud, or malware targeted at Wikimedia users. Pine 21:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that we should do all those things - although "linking to malware" is a bit vague, I'm sure we link or linked to many tools pages, probably including the virus toolkit - and I believe we link to Microsoft. Some of that belongs in the Privacy Policy, some of it in operations, some of it in various bits of user documentation. We are pretty good at password management these days - though an encrypted logon through a java applet might be a good facility. The only thing is, none of this belongs in the ToS. Rich Farmbrough 01:36 14 September 2011 (GMT).

See [1] If there are outstanding issues, please let us know. --Mdennis (WMF) 20:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Harassment, threat and abuse

Resolved.

Hi Geoff, I'm wondering about the need to incorporate harassment, threats etc. in the Terms of use. Is this a new area where WMF will be taking a lead, since this area is reserved for community and internal consensus on projects. I am wondering how far it can go and what is the intention? Theo10011 21:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I like this section because it spells out that some types of conduct will get an user banned by the community and in some very rare instances it will be enforced by the WMF by using legal means if necessary. I think that section could make it more obvious that bans and blocks happen primarily by the community by putting it earlier in the section. So, it shows that there most likely will be a progression with the community usually dealing with the issue first, and then the WMF. FloNight 21:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Theo. I'll let Geoff answer as well if he likes, but since I read the draft previously and both Philippe and I are working with legal on these issues I'll take a stab at it: the short answer is that the new provisions do not mean that the Wikimedia Foundation will be starting up a new system for policing the projects when it comes to harassment, threats, or abuse. The provisions exist to legally reinforce the right of the projects and the volunteers that run them to remove users who violate the terms of use and the community policies/guidelines which it says you must follow (see section 11). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Steven, I saw the reply after sending my post to foundation-l. :P sorry about that. Thanks again for the prompt response and explanation, I'll see if Geoff or someone, expands more on the draft of the provision here or elsewhere. Later. Theo10011 01:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Theo. I agree with Steven's response. There may be exceptional cases where, as a legal team, we may wish to explore all alternatives at WMF, but that will be the rare case. When we do it though, it is helpful to have the explicit prohibition in the user agreement. The explicit prohibition does put people on fair notice about what behavior is not acceptable. This will be helpful for not only WMF, but also the Community, in communicating and enforcing what is appropriate behavior.

I dislike this as currently written. Terms of use should be enforced by the service provider. They are undermined by inclusion of undefined subjective items like harassment, threat and abuse among a multitude of prohibited activities in section 4. There are some very important items in this prohibited activities list. Rather than have a bright line when problems rightly become WMF responsibility, this draft document allows the WMF to take action against many misdemeanors. They will do this, inevitably showing favouritism to those closest to the WMF. John Vandenberg 03:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"They will do this, inevitably showing favouritism to those closest to the WMF."? How about some Assume Good Faith, John. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I assume that the WMF wont intentionally show favouritism. :-) And my statement is not a slight on the WMF staff, nor is it even directed at them. I have no qualms saying that people closest to WMF and Jimmy and ArbCom and admins are shown favouritism. It is a feature as much as it is a bug. This is reality. It is human nature. It is also a business reality whenever money is involved. And as the WMF grow, able to push US$50M per annum towards endeavours they consider to be strategic, their capacity to show favouritism increases. The remedy for this is to ensure that as much of wikimedia as possible is publicly visible, audit-able and transparent, and there is a culture of constant review and improvement. That keeps in check these unintended side effects of the strong bonds within our community, and the effect of enourmous amounts of money. Much of the internal workings of the WMF are not publicly audit-able. "w:WP:OFFICE" actions will never be publicly audit-able, so they should be reserved for cases which warrant the cards being played close to the chest, and the terms of use should prohibit activities which are uncontroversially unacceptable. The current laundry list of prohibited activities will mean that people in the community will scream "violation of terms of use" any time they feel harassed, threatened or hurt. It will become another tool to bludgeon each other with. And they will also bludgeon ArbCom and the WMF staff with "you're not enforcing the terms of use". What happens when ArbCom doesn't uphold these terms of use, or ArbCom principles are not as strongly worded as the terms of use; we'll be accused with being weak and supporting the harassers. And these people will turn to the WMF to enforce the terms of use. Good luck. John Vandenberg 06:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to make admins' jobs harder with the user agreement. They have a tough enough task. But, unless I'm mistaken, admins are already dealing with enforcement of some pretty ambiguous concepts on our site. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground To the extent any of these terms need further specification, the Community is able to do that by policy (as they have done in the past). To some degree, we came up with the first part of this list reviewing existing Community policies, so hopefully it reflects a short version of what the Community already wishes to prohibit. But, of course, I'm open to feedback on this. Geoffbrigham 22:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been considered and reviewed. If there are new issues related to this, please start a new conversation. We don't want updates to be overlooked. --Mdennis (WMF) 20:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please Keep Your Information Secure

Resolved.

The heading "Please Keep Your Information Secure" would probably make more sense as "Please Keep Your Password Secure". specially as elsewhere in this document you are asking people to release their information via CC-by-SA. Please keep your Personal Information secure might make a little more sense, but would conflict with longstanding policy that encourages editors to share certain personal information such a language proficiencies. WereSpielChequers 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the proposed change in the heading. Thanks. Geoffbrigham 00:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

See [2] If there are outstanding issues, please let us know. --Mdennis (WMF) 11:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Libel

Resolved.

The EN:McLibel Case is an article about a libel case, it explains amongst other things which of a list of libel charges were found to be true or false. A prohibition on the posting of "defamatory, or libelous content" would require that article to be bowdlerised. I suggest instead that the section be reworded so that wikinews and wikipedia can still cover libel cases appropriately. WereSpielChequers 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Geoff knows better of course, but I'm pretty certain that (in the U.S. at least) referring to or even quoting from past legal cases is not treated the same as posting original libelous content. I don't see any reason why articles on past libel cases in the courts would need to be redacted in any way. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well actually you only know definitively that something is libellous after the court hearings. So unless the WMF is intending to second guess the courts, this is far better left to the stricter and non-legalistic BLP provisions. (Second guessing the courts is a bad idea, firstly you can be suppressing material that you should not, which leads to problems of bias, with all the "-ism" related issues that that entails, secondly you can allow material which you should suppress, which might very well lead you into a liability situation, where without the clause, as a common carrier, you would have (in the US but not in the UK) no liability.) Rich Farmbrough 20:41 11 September 2011 (GMT).

I think Steven is right. Libel under US laws depends on the whole circumstance, not on bits quoted out of context. Courts themselves commonly quote libelous statements in their public decisions, and then go on to say that this bit is libelous because it's false, misleading, or whatever. WhatamIdoing 01:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK so we are all happy with current practice such as the EN:McLibel Case. Now how do we reword these terms to reflect that? WereSpielChequers 22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that any re-wording is necessary. "The defendant's statement that _____ was found to be libel" is not a libelous statement, so posting that material would not violate this (proposed) agreement. WhatamIdoing 17:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a scenario where one can repeat libellous content without libelling someone. If the terms were about not using the site to commit libel then it would be OK to have defamatory or libellous content such as "X was found guilty of libelling Y by accusing them of Z". But these terms are much broader than that, which wouldn't be a problem except that we have people here trying to write encyclopedia articles, publish original source material on Wikisource and even write news reports, potentially on libel trials. WereSpielChequers 19:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see WereSpielChequers's point. We can reword to prohibit merely libel (as opposed to "libelous content"). Geoffbrigham 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Geoff. WereSpielChequers 11:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See [3] If there are outstanding issues, please let us know. --Mdennis (WMF) 12:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved.

The first part of this is too wordy. Shorten and simplify. For example, most of "Overview..." is duplicated under "A description..." andf its first sentence can be cut right down: "This Agreement explains our Services, our relationship to you as a User, and your and our rights and responsibilities."

I think it makes sense to have a summary paragraph. If somebody reads nothing but the overview, they have a good idea about how our site works. Geoffbrigham 16:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Most studies find that simple direct statements work better in formal documents. Title the 2nd section just "Privacy policy", not "Please Look at Our Privacy Policy", and section 3 as "Content policies" or "Hosted content", not "About the Content We Host". Likewise section 7 should be "Licencing and re-use", not "How Content Is Licensed".

Section 4 contains a long preamble and 18 bullet points. Too long to read as it stands. Group them in 5 headings with bullets under each as examples:

• Harmful, distressing, and defamatory activity
• Breach of privacy, copyright, trademarks, or other rights
• Disruptive use, and misuse of websites or facilities, for purposes other than intended
• Activities that are illegal or relate to minors
• Soliciting or exploiting personal information

I like this idea. Geoffbrigham 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Termination" is poorly worded ("In the event of termination, your account may be disabled and you may not be granted access to it, or to any files or other content contained in your account. In such a case, your contributions may remain accessible to other Users."). Reword: - If your account is terminated for any reason, you and other users will still have access to your public actions and your contributions, but you will not be able to access your account or its settings once disabled.

Makes sense to me. Geoffbrigham 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing that's caused occasional headaches from time to time, and would be nice to see addressed: - a provision that third parties who outframe our content on their site, or with adverts or offers, or in books, should state that the original content is available free and without adverts. Is that consistent with CC?

Not sure this is consistent with CC, and I'm hesitant to impose requirements that go beyond the license. Section 7(h) addresses reuse of content, and usually the applicable license needs to be noted. I would suggest that this is sufficient notice as to how content may be used. But I'm open to feedback on this. Geoffbrigham 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There's others but those are starters. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 17:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this apply to off-site activity?

Resolved.

"Using any information obtained from a Project website to harass, abuse, or harm another person."

As a member of Encyclopedia Dramatica and the Wikipedia Review, I'm considered that the implications of this line. I often link to diff's from Wikimedia project to point out mistakes, evidence of abuse, and to document events. For example, I wrote 90% of ED's "Wikipe-tan" article. In this, I include links and quotes, and both of those fit the definition of "information obtained from a Project website." At "Wikipe-tan#Anti-anime_movement", I mock attempts by those wishing to delete enwiki's Wikipe-tan page. Here I include quotes and information I've obtained from Wikipedia. I also wrote an article on the user "Herostratus", yet he didn't complain. In fact, he requested that it be whitelisted.

I enjoy Wikipedia and the other projects the WMF offered. I don't wish for my account to be terminated due to the things I enjoy doing off-site. --Michaeldsuarez 20:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Concerning the Wikipedia Review, some people view criticism and scrutiny as harassment. I don't. Wiki are meant to be transparent. You can view page histories and examine who added what and when. Transparency exists to allow scrutiny. In addition, I'm allowed to have an opinion about about others. Everyone has the right to dislike a sysop and express their opinion, yet some users may view these expressions as harassment. --Michaeldsuarez 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Harass" has a very specific legal definition. Legitimate criticism, gentle fun, even mockery to a certain extent can be absolutely okay. I've certainly taken my share of it. When it crosses the line into harassment, well... I don't know how that would be defensible. Philippe (WMF) 21:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Will the WMF make clear that it is using the legal definition there, rather than a more expansive one? Please note that these terms do have a history of being used expansively in some Wikipedia contexts. Inversely, I've seen very little interest in enforcing such policy when the offenders are "insiders" attacking "outsiders". -- Seth Finkelstein 21:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that they mean to apply a legal definition of "vandalism" so I'm surprised if other words in there are intended to be interpreted that way. 87.254.77.167 22:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The first line of section 4's prohibitions list "harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism". The first three terms are thrown around widely and loosely by certain cliques in the Wikimedia community, particularly on en.wp). "Spamming" isn't a legal term at all. "Vandalism" might not be legally applicable in an "everyone can edit" environment. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if you ignore the "anyone can edit", the lack of permanence or costly damage seems key to me. Spray painting someone's car (without permission) is vandalism. Writing in the snow that's fallen on their car, or in the mist on the window... I doubt it. If you can click a button to reverse it then I doubt that's vandalism in any legal or commonly understood sense. Not a lawyer though so *shrug*. 87.254.77.167 23:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This also struck me as problematic. In particular, Wikipedia has no way to know whether an off-wiki account is really the same as an on-wiki account. And so far as I know Wikipedia has very few cases in which off-wiki behavior can be counted against someone under policy. So when enforcing this TOS, what standard of evidence applies? What WMF employee says "he probably did it" and bans someone? Is there any recourse? Is there anything to stop him from arbitrarily making charges even if unsupported entirely? Wnt 05:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, there is no real way to know if two on-site identities are the same, barring co-editing patterns. And it has been the position of many of us that if someone "comes back" as a new account that is editing well, then we need not look too closely (I know others disagree, but to me this follows the "punishment" rather than "prevention" theory of blocks and bans, which we specifically repudiate). Rich Farmbrough 21:00 11 September 2011 (GMT).

I think you're worried about the wrong problems, so let me give you a real-world example of why we ought to have had this from the beginning:

A long-time admin at the English Wikipedia reported a while ago that he had received phone calls at home from someone who was very upset about losing some basic content dispute. In these phone calls, the other editor not only complained about Wikipedia's inconvenient content policies, but also threatened the admin's wife and children by name.

Naturally, this off-wiki harassment warrants a prompt phone call to the police. But do you really want that other editor at Wikipedia ever again? What would you tell the admin and his family? "Yes, we know the guy ended up in jail for threatening you and your family, but he made those threats over the telephone system rather than on wiki, so we're letting him keep editing." Wouldn't a better response be something like, "We're blocking that account, and he can apply for unblocking when he can provide letters of support from two psychiatrists plus a video of Satan ice-skating to work"? WhatamIdoing 01:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrectly capitalized letters

Resolved.

I find this:

How Content Is Licensed

Why not write this in proper English:

How content is licensed

Must even the word "is" have a capital initial letter?

We provide certain Services. Really? Capital initial "S"? Why?

Lawyers often capitalize initial letters that by reasonable standards of usage should be in lower case, but sometimes that's to call attention to them or to impress the reader with the idea that this is important or to create some sort of sense of formality. Overdoing it as much as that is done here is silly.

Guilty as charged. Will make the changes. Geoffbrigham 03:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Once upon a time I was summoned for jury duty, and I was handed an informational booklet that referred to Judges, Attorneys, Court Rooms, Bailiffs, and all sorts of things with capital initials that should be in lower case by standard usage conventions. One of those was this term: Jury Room. But later it said something about a: jury. Really. With a lower-case initial j. Jury Room requires capital letters. But jury doesn't! Could it be that attorneys aren't all that impressed by juries? But want juries to be impressed by Jury Rooms? How much respect should I have for people who write like that, for the effect it might have on yokels?

This is puerile and undignified. Lawyers should learn to spell properly. Michael Hardy 02:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is one of the many stylistic oddities that lawyers learn by osmosis from their senior colleagues and legal texts. In traditional law a contract defining "Judge - a person with a silly wig" then going on to use the word "judge" would have been deemed to have been using the word "judge" in it's usual sense, rather than the defined sense. I believe a more common-sense approach is taken these days - in either case rooted in precedent. Nonetheless, where the definitions have not been given, or if they have been given using a sensible case - A "judge" is a... - then their is no need to use Germanic capitalisation.

Furthermore, their is delight in list phrases, which stem partly from the Anglo/Norman legal days where it was often necessary to name things in both languages - "shall not carry forth in any bucket or pail". So here we see "individual or User", a triple or even quadruple solecism in three words, firstly the capital, secondly the redundant list, thirdly the use of the word individual, and fourthly the exclusion of bodies corporate and others, all resolved by the use of the word "person". Rich Farmbrough 14:42 11 September 2011 (GMT).

The document uses en:Title Case for section titles and a few sub-titles like "We Do Not Take an Editorial Role", which is a practice that your English teachers would approve of wholeheartedly. The use of en:Sentence case, which is what the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style prescribes, is a common convention in modern journalism, but it is not the One True Style™.

Within the text, capital letters are conventionally used in legal documents to indicate that the definition or description in the document (which may be implicit or explicit) overrules the dictionary definition. So, for example, the Agreement is this particular agreement, not any old agreement, and the User is the User defined in the third paragraph, not any old user. WhatamIdoing 01:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If I write about the University of Wherever, and later in the document refer to the University, with a capital initial "U", that's because the word is being used as an abbreviated form of the name, "University of Wherever". I think what you're talking about when you mention superseding dictionary definitions is similar, e.g. when it refers to the Project, but I wonder if you can explain how my comments about a Jury Room and a jury fit into that. It would be easier to believe some of your other comments if I didn't see stuff like that. Michael Hardy 19:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

An informational booklet is not a legal agreement. What you found in the informational booklet was merely appalling style, presumably written by a person who didn't know any better. What you see here is the convention for a legal agreement. The style has meaning here. WhatamIdoing 23:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and indeed my point was that the convention has survived, while the legal requirement has, over time faded, as I understand it. Rich Farmbrough 01:14 14 September 2011 (GMT).

You're right: following the conventional style of the legal field is not required by law. But it is also not wrong to do so in a legal agreement. WhatamIdoing 17:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not just a legal document, this is a draft for a communication that we would potentially be showing to all current and future volunteer editors. Yes it needs to be something the lawyers can accept, but it also needs to respect our values as a community, and be part of a deal that current and future volunteers are prepared to make. So getting the style right is just as important as getting the law correct. Making sure that this is a deal that people are willing to make is much more important. Sometimes lawyers need to argue every dot and comma to the benefit of their client, and sometimes they need to help their client make something as attractive as they can. WereSpielChequers 22:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So I am humbled by this discussion.  :) I agree that often legal style has meaning. That said, my over-capitalization is properly reproached here. It makes the document harder to read, and it has no legal value. Geoffbrigham 03:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 16:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

linking is not a crime

Resolved.

One of the prohibited activities is "Linking to material that violates any provision of this Agreement or any applicable law or regulation".

This goes further than the law in most countries, and is not settled in the US. See e.g. w:DMCA#Linking_to_infringing_content.

This would mean linking to wikileaks is a WMF-bannable offense, even if wikileaks content has been covered in international news. (e.g. w:Special:LinkSearch/*.wikileaks.info

This would mean that many editors of w:AACS encryption key controversy would be WMF-bannable. A lot of links on that page are illegal. The page itself even includes the illegal hex string, so anyone linking to the Wikipedia page is WMF-bannable.

The terms of use should not be prohibiting activities where the law is unsettled. These issues need to be tested in courts. The WMF should be standing up and being counted on the side of the freedoms that Wikipedia editors need in order to discuss and writing about these topics, without fear of stupid laws that mean that some URLs are illegal and without worrying that they might be WMF-banned as a result. John Vandenberg 04:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that, but that's outrageous. Let's start with the fact that this is a Terms of Service for Wikimedia users. So tell me - how can anything on a third party site violate any provision of this Agreement? Is what they mean is that they're banning links to false and misleading content? So, like, if I link to Fox News I can be banned? (Admittedly, some people might see some justice...) This TOS needs to be round-filed. It will be like most of the TOSes on the Internet, written by a bunch of lawyers, ignored by users, fitfully enforced by managers leading to bad blood and threats of boycotts, until at last Anonymous steps in and enforces the people's justice. Wnt 05:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Another example is w:2010 Senkaku boat collision incident#Links to the leaked video clips, which include links to youtube videos which (according to Wikipedia) the Japanese government consider to be breaches of security and confidentiality. Would linking to youtube be a "violation of .. any applicable law or regulation"? If the Japanese government considers these videos to be illegal, just like the US considers the wikileaks to be illegal, then linking to these youtube videos would become a WMF-bannable prohibited activity. John Vandenberg 06:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I presume that you wouldn't mind having users banned for linking to malware or child porn sites at any WMF project, since standing up for spammers and criminals isn't your idea of standing up for freedom. Can you think of a concise way to communicate the general point that linking can break the law, and doing so can result in a ban? WhatamIdoing 02:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to point out to people that if they break the law they are liable to get a ban - at least in the egregious ways you are implying. We certainly shouldn't be trying to list all the ways that they may break the law by editing or using Wikipedia, firstly because we will omit stuff, creating loopholes, secondly because we will probably be wrong about stuff we include (even if we are lawyers), thirdly because it would be a huge list, and fourthly because en:WP:BEANS. Rich Farmbrough 01:11 14 September 2011 (GMT).

I was coming here to comment on the same line of text, but John Vandenberg and Wnt have already made my point. This line should be altered or removed. Themfromspace 00:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with much of what is said here. I'm open to suggestions on rewording, and here is an idea: "Linking to third party sites when such linking violates applicable law." This rewording makes clear that the "linking" must be illegal (like intentionally encouraging people to follow a link to a child pornography site) without casting a broader net that prohibits any linking to "material that violates any provision of this Agreement or any applicable law or regulation." I think we should not simply delete the reference to linking because I think new users need some guidance and many are not aware of the issue, but I agree that a more narrow formulation is appropriate. Geoffbrigham 18:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Geoff, that seems reasonable to me; as far as I'm concerned, this addresses the same point raised above (in Effeietsanders' comments) and below (in mine); I'll mark those accordingly as "resolved" (provisionally, pending your changes to the text). Thanks! -Pete F 21:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Many are not aware of the issue" that will only change if we explain the issue. I'm not convinced that the current wording does that, or that terms of use are the best place to do so. I see the terms of use as something that new editors might skim through and a few pedants will argue every clause of. I don't see them as part of the ongoing training of our editors. WereSpielChequers 08:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 16:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You may not break the law

Resolved.

What? The government needs "terms of use" to back it up? Rich Farmbrough 13:08 10 September 2011 (GMT).

I submit that it is helpful to set out examples of inappropriate uses of the site to give people fair notice on what is not allowed. To be sure, just telling people not to break the law is unhelpful, but I think the examples in Section 4 are (though we can discuss what examples are appropriate for our Community). It also lets people know about our culture: we are a revolutionary Community that seeks to expand the public domain, for example, but at the same time we do not condone copyright infringement on our site. Making that clear to new users is useful. Geoffbrigham 20:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 16:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

DMCA

Resolved.

I note that this section provides methods for take-down, and sends people off to "find out" about wrongful take-down, rather than providing methods.

We currently have at least one unchallengeable take-down on en:wp, due to WMF's process, and it would be more useful to actually address this broken process than create expensive lawyer fodder. Rich Farmbrough 13:20 10 September 2011 (GMT).

To my knowledge, there are no take-downs that can't be challenged. I could be wrong, but I just looked at the list today and didn't see any... regardless, the WMF's internal processes now include referring the original poster to methods and resources (which are about as far as we can go) that can help them with a counter-notice. Philippe (WMF) 01:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Please Keep Your Information Secure

Resolved.

You are responsible for any actions taken or content contributed under your Username,

• This is plain wrong. If someone hacks my account, forges my sig or a dev makes changes under my name, or there is a software glitch I am not responsible.

Rich Farmbrough 13:30 10 September 2011 (GMT).

If someone hacks your account, that would typically mean you weren't using a very good password (someone could try a brute force attack, but I can't see why they would). You are responsible for your passwords. While anyone can forge a sig on a talk page, you can't forge the username next to the edit in a page history, which is what actually matters. It's true that sysops or software glitches could cause problems, though. Perhaps "You are responsible for any actions taken or content contributed under your Username either by you, with your permission or through negligence on your part." would be better. --Tango 14:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I heard that not long ago there was an admin account that got hacked. Is the admin financially liable for the actions of the hacker? Pine 11:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes several people including some admins have had accounts hacked, and in the days of keyloggers and spyware simply having a secure password isn't enough. A 12 digit random password is hard to crack, but if you've had your PC infected with Spyware, just as easy to copy as a 6 digit one. In practice I'd hope we'd ignore these terms and next time a user has their account hacked we'll welcome them back when they are back in control of their account. Last time I was in a public unencrypted wifi I just edited as an IP and IMHO it would be better to encourage people to do that than to threaten to make them responsible for the actions of the hacker who compromised their account. WereSpielChequers 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The primary reason for this section is to remind people that they are responsible for safeguarding their passwords. That said, I'm fine with rewording the section to omit discussion about collateral responsibility. Geoffbrigham 20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Trollish suggestion

Resolved.

The document as currently worded will actually cause a lot more trouble than it is designed to prevent. I strongly recommend consulting Mike Godwin before adopting this.

Seriously, folks... this is a nightmare just waiting to happen. --SB_Johnny ^talk 18:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Mike has already spent quite a few hours talking with Geoff about this and other matters that need to be understood as General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation. If he wants to weigh in publicly I hope he does, but he's certainly not been in the dark about the legal department's plans. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I assumed SB_Johnny was making a joke in that part. While we're on the topic, though, is there a non-disparagement clause in force? (I don't expect this to be answered, but I've wondered, so I'll ask it). -- Seth Finkelstein 22:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that no-one posting here would know the answer to that question.  :) Philippe (WMF) 01:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Therein might lie the problem, if you think about it too hard ;-). If this ends up being applied selectively (and "selectively" includes following popularity votes by "the community"), you're going to end up with potential liability issues that are just plain unhelpful.

I somehow get the impression that this is a very complicated and well-intentioned attempt to fix what ain't broke. Etc. --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness to the WMF, I can see a very reasonable argument that there's an increasing chance of breakage in the future, so some preventive preemptive action is called for. Sort of reinforcing the barn door lock bolts when the horse has grown from a little foal into an aggressive stallion (making it a gelding being deemed unacceptable by the owners ...). -- Seth Finkelstein 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been considered and reviewed. If there are new issues related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 16:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

Resolved.

Minor nits for someone to fix:

• Section 9: In the title and the first sentence, "third party websites" should be hyphenated.
• Section 10: Stray space before second comma in first sentence should be removed.
• Section 17: In "we will provide at least three (3) days notice", the word days is possessive and should therefore be followed by an apostrophe.

There may be more, but these are the ones that I made a note of. WhatamIdoing 00:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Geoffbrigham 20:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not do this.

Resolved.

Use the old Terms Of Use, please. This Terms Of Use are not well made and the idea behind it isn´t good for a free project like Wikipedia.--89.204.153.212 20:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Medieval armor

Resolved.

Transmitting chain mail is forbidden. Michael Hardy 20:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is exactly these kinds of articles that the Terms of Use should be prohibiting. We should take this one down immediately.  :) Geoffbrigham 16:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Users Authors and Editors

Resolved.

This document largely refers to us as users, and at least once as authors. Editors and Readers are both longer, and presumably would require an opening sentence that defined those terms. But this is one place where that sort of courtesy would be more appropriate than usual. WereSpielChequers 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to think about, for sure. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The terms of use for Users, Editors, Projects and Reusers (who want to reuse our stuff elsewhere) are quite different and the terms of use should be clearly divided into different sections (or pages) aimed at each of these.

Users or Readers get the right to download and save stuff to read later for instance - a right not available on other sites.

Authors and Editors have certain duties to the projects and certain more general duties to the foundation.

The projects themselves are separate from and clients of the Foundation and have certain duties to the foundation. I think a section of the Terms of Use directed at the projects would be useful - spelling out that the projects have a lot of leeway to manage themselves but are subject to certain restrictions, in accordance with their agreements with WMF (Wikipedias are neutral, all projects use free licenses, all projects allow contributions from the public)

The TOU for reusers are more general and basicly point to the license terms and the fact that the Foundation doesn't own the copyrights.--Filceolaire 11:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think "Users" is a good idea, since it covers everyone, and other options don't. For example, a person who uploads a photograph to Commons would probably not describe himself as an "Editor". I imagine that a reader who rates an article with the Article Feedback Tool or who leaves one comment on a talk page would not think of himself as an "Editor" either. But all of these people see themselves as "Users". WhatamIdoing 01:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

But the terms of use are not the same for all users. Terms of use for readers are different from those for authors and editors. I did think of using "Contributors" as a term for authors and editors but I thought that could be confused with donors - people who give money. The Terms of Use for monetary Donors will be very short -

What benefits do I get if I donate money to Wikipedia?

• The satisfaction of knowing you are helping to achieve our Vision
• er...
• That's it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs) .

And within the US, some donors will receive tax benefits, and possibly some advertising value, if they publish a list of donors.

On your other point, the terms are the same for all users. The only difference is that only certain terms are applicable for certain situations. This is the same as any other website. For example, CNN.com says that "By submitting User Content to CNN.com, you automatically grant CNN and its parent company, Cable News Network, Inc., the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, publish, reproduce, modify, adapt, edit, translate...". Those are the terms for everyone, but since I've never submitted any user content, that particular paragraph doesn't apply to me. WhatamIdoing 23:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who fixes a typo, categorises an article or uploads a photograph is one of our volunteer contributors, by convention we call them editors, I think contributors might be more accurate - but our terms should use the jargon that we use in the community. Telling a fellow wikimedian that their contributions are such that we are downgrading them from "editor" to "user" is a bad move. WereSpielChequers 23:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that calling me a "user" rather than an "editor" is a downgrade. But then, I don't buy into the notion that "editors" are better than "readers", either, and I know that some "editors" do believe themselves to be much, much more important than readers. WhatamIdoing 17:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. I have received feedback to date that we should simplify the agreement even more, which suggests to me that we should use a generic term like "user" and not create separate sections for different types of users. Indeed, one can be a reader one minute, an editor the second, and a Wikimedia Commons contributor the next. Some guidelines will apply to each of those three roles, and some will be specific to only one. I fear that charting all that will make the document too complicated and hard to understand. Obviously I don't want to offend anybody by the term "user." It seems neutral to me, but maybe I have that wrong. To the extent it helps, we can make clear in a sentence that the term "user" includes readers, editors, etc. Geoffbrigham 00:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User would be fine if you were referring to both readers and editors, but as soon as you start talking about people who are posting information on our sites you are setting rules that only apply to editors. I doubt if many would actually be offended, its more a question of whether we want this document to read like it belonged on the site or was just a bolt on externally commissioned bit of legalese. My preference is very much to make this read as part of the site. Something that goodfaith editors would read and see as backing up our policies for dealing with badfaith editors. WereSpielChequers 11:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The term that is most common on the English Wikipedia is not the term that is most common on 100% of projects. Here at Meta, for example, we don't really have "editors", because there's not really any content to edit. MediaZilla has zero editors. Commons uses contributors and editors (and means slightly different things by these terms). Wikibooks uses author, contributor, editor, and user interchangeably. If we choose what seems "natural" on the English Wikipedia, we will be choosing what seems quite strange on other projects. This document has to work for 100% of projects, not just for the Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing 16:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume that since every page has "edit" at the top, anyone who clicks on that could be described as an editor. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I propose that we use the term "user," but define it better. In the introduction to the user agreement, I have included this sentence: We welcome you (“you” or the “User”) to use our Services and join the Wikimedia Community as a reader, editor, author, or contributor, but before you do, we ask that you please read and agree to the following Terms of Use (the “Agreement”). Geoffbrigham 02:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are we asking readers to read the TOU before reading? Our content is under Free Culture licenses which mean readers get every right under copyright law plus some extra rights. Why would they need to read the TOU?

Our TOU for editors and authors and anyone who contributes content are different and vary from project to project. The TOU for reusers and republishers are different again and also vary from project to project. Why are these being lumped together? Maybe it would be better to start with TOU for editors and authors of English Wikipedia and extend this to other sites later.--Filceolaire 07:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User agreements usually apply to all its users. This user agreement has numerous provisions that are applicable to readers. See, e.g., 3(a), 3(b), 4 (e.g., engaging in malware attacks), 5, 6, 8, 14, 15. I prefer a single agreement, especially one which is not as extensive as most user agreements. Frankly, I believe people would find multiple agreements as too confusing. Geoffbrigham 15:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Very small edit

Resolved.

Copyedit, please Presently, this reads:

... “we” or ”us”

But should read:

...“we” or “us”

Or barring that, use straight quotes instead (""). Koavf 05:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. :) Thanks much for finding that! --Mdennis (WMF) 11:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Disrupting the Services ...

Resolved.

Hello, This really needs clarification. It could easily be misinterpreted. Yann 06:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking it out. If a bot runs too fast it is easy enough to deflag it. While deliberate denial of service attacks can be treated like any other form of vandalism. WereSpielChequers 08:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just recently WMF operations had to deal with a suspicious IP making lots of database queries, which turned out to be a bot running on an Amazon EC2 node. I believe it ended up killing a db temporarily. The community can't just deflag an account if there's no account there, and the truth is most Internet bots are not the kind that get registered and make edits. So it's important that we state that we have the right to revoke your access if you break the site. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's important that we act in such circumstances, but do we need yet another hostile sounding line in the terms? If we took this line out is there any risk that in a future such incident anyone would argue that they did have the right to break our site in this particular way? We don't have lines in there preventing people from using a digger to dig a most round our offices and cut all power lines.... WereSpielChequers 18:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Geoff honestly has a better answer based on legal precedent, but of those two examples you gave, bots running wild etc. is something that has happened repeatedly in the past, affects other major websites, and is thus assessed as a real legal risk if we do not explicitly say what is allowed and what isn't. The latter example you gave is totally hypothetical and thus doesn't present enough of a legal risk to include in the document (of course). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet somehow without this TOS in place you still managed to deal with that bot. How is that? Wnt 21:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit of a red herring, isn't it? Sure, with a spitball I can sometimes stop an invading army. But I can do it better with a cannon or a sniper rifle. Philippe (WMF) 05:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you're being attacked by misbehaving children, I'd rather you stuck with spitballs. Wnt 16:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There's three scenarios here:

1. Some kind of error - someone not understanding the impact of their actions (or in the old days when we get "slashdotted").
2. Some naive attack - skript kidz if you will, or a special interest group with limited skillz.
3. Some more sophisticated attack.

In the first scenario we simply need to resolve the issue, no need to take legal steps.

In the second situation we will probably not even notice the attack (there was one such attempt, by a significant sepcial interest group, that was picked up by chance - I forget the details, but it didn't even blip server response). If we do, then we have the full arsenal of defence measures at our disposal.

In the third scenario, we have the law, the majority of ISPs and the FBI on our side, together with more technical expertise than you can shake a stick at. In this context, we are not going to be worried about telling Mr Big that he will not be allowed to edit from Fulsome.

Rich Farmbrough 20:52 11 September 2011 (GMT).

I see the point. What if we put an intent element in the equation, rewriting the clause to read as follows: "Disrupting the Services by placing an undue burden on a Project website or the networks or servers connected with a Project website with no serious intent to use the website, networks, or servers for their stated purpose."? Geoffbrigham 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Because even if the disruption is purely accidental and with the best intention in the world, we still both need and want to stop the disruption. "Disrupting the services" is Never Okay. That it's never okay and always prohibited doesn't mean that we have to be hateful to people who accidentally do this, but even accidental disruption with the best, most seriously appropriate intentions is unacceptable. We are never going to tell our users, "Ooops, it looks like the English Wikipedia is offline for the rest of the day, but that's okay: the person who is accidentally preventing your ability to access it was trying to do something positive for the readers."

Rich, this is not a list of "we will sue you into oblivion if you...". This is a list of "don't do these things—and we may block you (just like we blocked Amazon a while ago) if you do these things." WhatamIdoing 16:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the nub of the disagreements here. To me and I suspect many others there is no need to pad the TOU out with things where we wouldn't involve lawyers. Regardless of what the TOU say and whether disruption is deliberate or accidental, we will block editors, bots and IPs when we need to. What would be useful to have in the TOU is something that lets the Foundation go after the three or four persistent troublemakers who tie up a huge amount of our volunteers time. But that doesn't just mean TOU changes, it may not even need TOU changes. But it does require commitment and budget from the Foundation that before people get to the point where we are rangeblocking hundreds of thousands of IPs, the Foundation will take legal action to defend the wiki. WereSpielChequers 10:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the above discussion, I will leave the clause as it is. The purpose of the clause is to inform users and to have an easy point of reference when someone starts burdening the system. In rare cases, we may initiate judicial action where a reference in the user agreement could be useful. See 18 U.S.C. 1030 Geoffbrigham 02:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 16:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this duplicate or supersede policy?

Resolved.

This is a typical-looking terms of use for a business run in the standard dictatorial model, actually lenient in a few details like lewd and indecent material. But that covers up the point that Wikipedia already has a community that has addressed virtually all of these issues, and could address any of them, which is why it lasted so long with a very atypical TOS, which was always a heartening aspect of the project. There are already reams of policy, admins, ArbCom, all kinds of things to throw off users. So why are so many categories of behavior named here, which can be dealt with there? Is it your intent eventually to make the community policy-making process entirely irrelevant? Will administration likewise be done by some WMF employees throwing people out for violating TOS rather than by admins? If you've survived to become the 5th-largest website without this TOS, doesn't that prove you don't need it ever? Wnt 19:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The relevant quotes here are:

[Section 10] Typically, isolated violations of Project policy and other similar issues will be dealt with by the Wikimedia Community , and will not require our intervention.

[Section 10] ...please be aware that authorized members of the Wikimedia Community may also take action according to the policies of individual Projects, including but not limited to investigating, blocking, and/or banning Users who violate those policies.

[Section 11] You also agree to abide by mandatory policies and guidelines that are developed on an individual Wikimedia Project level, and which can be found at the particular Project websites.

To answer the questions: "Is it your intent eventually to make the community policy-making process entirely irrelevant? Will administration likewise be done by some WMF employees throwing people out for violating TOS rather than by admins?" the answer is no. I think from the feedback here it's desirable that with Geoff's approval we should make the language about the precedence of existing community policy and governance stronger and/or more prominent in the relevant sections, because the purpose of adding such clauses is that by putting them in an official Terms of Use, it gives the right of the community to deal with problem users legal backing that didn't exist before. What we're not going to do is become Facebook and hire a team of moderators or similar kind of staff people to enforce the terms. The point of the new terms is to support the movement exactly how it functions now, not alter its roles and responsibilities. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why would it need legal backing? Do the policies with legal backing in the TOS have more importance or strength than those not mentioned in the TOS? And if an administrative action has legal backing, doesn't that mean that accusing someone of a policy violation is a legal threat? Wnt 05:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. Someone does something bad, they are not allowed to edit - problem solved (pragmatically - we know there are massive difficulties in the implementation, but the egregious cases covered by a ToS are not difficult to deal with). Linking to community policies - including "Ignore all rules" is setting up an unnecessary legal minefield. This is yet another layer of process, and it is beginning to feel like the tail wagging the dog. Rich Farmbrough 13:16 10 September 2011 (GMT).

Although I am community liaison, I'm offering my own opinion here. I'm not speaking for the WMF. It needs legal backing because there are rare, severe cases that cannot be addressed without legal options. Since I undertook my contract as community liaison in May, I have been contacted by multiple administrators on English Wikipedia frustrated by their inability to actually do anything about long-term egregious vandals, some of whom take their harassment well beyond inserting bad words into articles. This is a huge step forward to assist the communities with problems like that, when all else fails, although I don't want to mislead anybody into thinking I'm trying to suggest that this will be common. Given all factors (not least cost), I'm sure it won't be. In terms of legal threats, not every project has a policy against legal threats, of course, but those that do seem capable of drafting language to avoid going to extremes. For example, EN:WP:NLT recognizes that "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat"." I imagine that if there is any confusion language can be drafted in similar manner to clarify that pointing out policy violation is not a legal threat. Again, my opinion. --Mdennis (WMF) 14:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Steven's suggestion that we should craft language that makes clear the dominant (and superior) role of the Community here. Good suggestion, especially given the strength of the feedback. Geoffbrigham 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope that the list of prohibitions are consistent with Community policy to date. If we have a prohibition that is contrary to our Community values, we should delete it. That said, I do see a benefit in putting a short, easy-to-understand list in the user agreement. Among other things, it ensures that new editors have fair notice (as discussed above). Hopefully, at least that is the intent, the Community's job is facilitated when there are clear rules in place that everyone has agreed to. There are legal advantages as well. For example, for some legal statutes on computer misuse, a user agreement can play a role in defining the scope of authorization in using the site. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1030(4), (5). Geoffbrigham 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Maggie, I don't understand your point about "legal options": I hope the WMF is not going to sue (very bad) vandals "to assist the communities"; it's not a viable option and it would be unfair to most communities, because it would necessarily be a USA and English projects only assistance. In case of harassment and so on, the WMF should only do what needed to let others enforce the (local) law, so that all users are treated fairly. Nemo 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. (Nemo, I've read your question, but I'm afraid that I'm not at liberty to discuss in detail. Sorry. :/ I will simply have to note that lawsuits are not the extent of legal options, and legal options are by no means limited to the USA and English projects.) --Mdennis (WMF) 16:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments

Resolved.

• "we do not contribute, monitor, or delete content (with the rare exception of legal compliance for DMCA notices, etc.)." Doesn't the Foundation contribute some content in the form of information on Wikimania events?
• "You May Find Some Material Objectionable" - how does this tie in with the proposed image filter?
• "Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights;" add "except where permitted by fair use or other exceptions."
• "Attempting to impersonate another User or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the Username of another User;" add "or any conduct commonly known as sockpuppeting (such as using multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; or creating the illusion of greater support for a position; or circumventing a block or topic ban); or meatpuppeting (such as asking your friends to create accounts to support you)."

I understand the concept and may try to include similar, but maybe shorter, language in the next draft. Geoffbrigham 03:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Accessing, tampering with, or using any of our non-public areas in our computer systems, including shared areas that you have not been invited to;" how are users supposed to know what areas they should not have been invited to?

I see your point. I think it depends on the circumstances, but, to prevent ambiguity, maybe we should delete that last clause. Geoffbrigham 03:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Pine 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the all-around constructive notes. To reply to the first two briefly... No, the WMF does not contribute to the content in any official capacity. Second, the image filter as proposed currently would let people filter images for themselves, but since it wouldn't do any filtering until you tell it to, there is still certainly the ability to find content you may think is objectionable. Plus, content includes text of course, and there are no plans to filter that for anyone. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. Also, I've edited my suggested wording on sockpuppeting. Pine 11:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Pine, good suggestions. I ended up taking the one you made about WMF contributions of content (like this user agreement). That said, such contributions are rare, so I don't want to overemphasize it. My edit on this topic is in the "Overview" section. I see your point on sock-puppeting, but I think this should be regulated in detail by the policies of the individual Projects. I hope the impersonation language is enough to support such policies. Geoffbrigham 03:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

On some of those points...

• "we do not contribute, monitor, or delete content (with the rare exception of legal compliance for DMCA notices, etc.)." This is rather vague, firstly it does not define "content" - the example ToS we are discussing is content on Meta. Secondly using the word "rare" - once a day? once a year? Thirdly the word "we" - does this refer to Foundation employees acting aas employees, does it include OTRS responders? Rich Farmbrough 14:29 11 September 2011 (GMT).

On the "content" issue, I suggest we insert the word "generally" - "we generally do not contribute ...." That makes clear that sometimes (and rarely) WMF posts materials - like this proposed user agreement. Can't really put a meaning on "rare": I sought to capture that, compared to the number of actions by the Community, WMF acts quite infrequently (as I believe should be the case). "We" refers to the Wikimedia Foundation (as defined in the first sentence of the agreement); it would not include OTRS responders. Geoffbrigham 03:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• "misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" does this mean "Sarek of Vulcan" and "Elen of Roads" need to change usernames? Rich Farmbrough 14:29 11 September 2011 (GMT).

 :) I sure hope not. We don't want people impersonating others for improper purposes; nor should people adopt user names that are affiliated with known entities (in part because of trademark considerations). I'm comfortable that this language will not be misused, but, of course, open to any other proposed language.

• "Accessing, tampering with, or using any of our non-public areas in our computer systems, including shared areas that you have not been invited to;" There is I believe a Computer Misuse Act (if that's the UK title, there is an equivalent US statute) that covers this ground much better. The way this is worded anyone accessing test-wiki (for example) could be in trouble. (Well, they probably wouldn't since a court would say the phraseology was over-broad.) And even someone incorrectly writing to an Arbcom or clerking page would find themselves on the wrong end of this clause. Rich Farmbrough 14:29 11 September 2011 (GMT).

I see the point. I suggest we keep the general concept but maybe narrow the language. Open to suggestions. Geoffbrigham 03:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Pine's proposal to qualify the prohibition on infringing copyrights, etc. is unnecessary. If the use is fair use or otherwise subject to an exception, then it is by definition not an infringement. WhatamIdoing 01:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to let this one point not undisputed:

>>Attempting to impersonate another User or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the Username of another User<<

are issues of relationships between human beings, and not at all necessarily abusive. Behaviour of this kind may happen accidentally, or as a joke among friends, or in situations of despair. E.g. in my opinion it is not abusive if you pretend on a wiki to belong to a religious faith if in reality you don't belong to it, or vice versa. All this situations of telling who you are and how you are related to otheres can be regultated by the local wikis, and can be managed on the local wikis. The same applys to sockpuppets or meatpuppets. If a wiki wants to ban, or regulate or allow puppets, they may do how they want, greetings --Rosenkohl 22:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rosenkohl, I've included the phrase "with intent to deceive" to address true cases of fraudulent misrepresentation. I declined to follow others' suggestions that we include more details about sock-puppeting. I agree this is left best to community enforcement. Geoffbrigham 15:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 16:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"your country"

Resolved.

... should be "country where you live" or some such. Seb az86556 21:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What about an British person living in Jordan and working in Israel? In the last twenty years or so, governments other than the US have started to go with extraterritoriality, retroactive legislation, double jeopardy and so forth. Again we are trying to take responsibility for editors here. What happens when someone gets arrested visiting China for having posted the flag of Tibet on Wikipedia? Is the WMF then civilly liable in Florida for the distress and loss, for saying that they only need consider US (and Florida) law and their own countries'? Rich Farmbrough 21:08 11 September 2011 (GMT).

This is presently what we say in one disclaimer:

Jurisdiction and legality of content

Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution. Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws; and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce, or republish the information contained herein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

I'm not as concerned about the liability issue as I am about providing fair notice. We could arguably reword the language in the proposed terms to talk more broadly about non-US law. Geoffbrigham 20:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 11:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sprachen

Resolved.

Angesichts der Tatsache, dass die Nutzungsbedingungen nur in einer englischen Fassung vorliegen und anderssprachige Versionen nicht vorgesehen sind, gehe ich davon aus, dass diese Nutzungsbedingungen nur für die englischen Nutzer bestimmt sind. Liesel 17:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

translation: Users who don´t understand english can not work as editors.--89.204.153.212 17:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Google translate: Given the fact that the terms, conditions present in only one English version and other language versions are not intended, I assume that these terms are intended only for English users. (by Philippe (WMF) 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Google Translate is useful if used intelligently, but anyone who trusts Google Translate is an idiot. Michael Hardy 19:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, in this case, the translation actually looks reasonable. Usually with fairly long sentences, Google Translate mangles things in absurd ways. Michael Hardy 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Given the facts, that the terms of use are only provided in English language and other language versions are not intended, I have to assume that this terms of use are only directed at English speaking users." Rough translation by hand.

In fact: Who would agree to usage terms that he can't even understand? --Niabot 20:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

90% of the people who have ever bought a home? Most of the people who apply for credit cards? A good deal of the people who have a contract with a cell phone carrier?

Just like the existing foundation:Terms of use have been translated into German (see foundation:Nutzungsbedingungen), the new terms of use will be translated, too. WhatamIdoing 23:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, great answer. The sales contract for my house is in German language, as well as the contract for my credit card and for my mobile phone. The reason simply is that German is my mother tongue and that I live in Germany. WMF wants every editor all over the world to accept Terms of use that they probably could misunderstand or simply do not understand. That's the point. No one except of (nearly) native english speakers can be part of a discussion regarding to the content of this draft. This is really no example of what I think a confidence-building measure should be. Siechfred 07:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ich möchte hier auch meinen Unmut kundtun. Juristische Fragen zu diskutieren ist schwer genug. Juristische Fragen in einer Fremdsprache zu diskutieren ist für den Laien fast unmöglich, dafür ist Sprache viel zu vieldeutig. Und ich wundere mich schon sehr über die "Diskussionskultur" der Foundation. Meiner Meinung nach sollten angemessene Übersetzungen vorliegen bevor so eine Diskussion angestoßen wird. Das nächste Mal bitte anders. Vielen Dank. --Kellerkind 08:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. You don't understand this? Your problem!

I agree that it would have been nice if the page had been translated in time for discussion, but if it is adopted, it will be translated before anyone is required to agree to it.

P.S. Natürlich verstehe ich Sie. WhatamIdoing 17:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, if You don't translate this now, You will have serious problems with the German community as You are having now with the picture filter.

The regular order should be:

1. translate proposal in as many as possible languages
2. discuss proposal in every available language
3. write summary of discussion in english
4. translate summary of discussion into every discussed language
5. ponder if a final secure poll is necessary
6. decide if no poll is necessary

--79.226.62.194 11:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A German translation ist now under Terms of use/de, --Rosenkohl 15:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Like our present terms of use, the new version is intended to be applicable to all sites. It is great to see the German translation, and I would encourage others. Geoffbrigham 21:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 22:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Soliciting personal information

Resolved.

The following is to be forbidden:

Soliciting personal information from anyone under the age of 18

So let's say at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities an 8th-grader says "I'm trying to decide whether I want to major in political science or in French literature." In the ensuing discussion someone asks him "Do you prefer geography to civics?". Is that question forbidden? If so, what are the legal consequences after it's happened? Could it be that this is here for the purpose of making things easier for lawyers after certain abuses happen and they don't care that it covers too much? After all, if there are plenty of violators, there will be plenty of people that they have grounds to do something to if they decide they don't like them (for reasons that will differ from the publicly stated ones). Michael Hardy 19:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The passage refers only to Personally identifiable information. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How would that be clear from the way the prohibition is phrased? Is it not at best a phrase that admits other interpretations than that? Michael Hardy 20:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael please the discussion in the section "Some comments" where I suggested alternatives. I agree this statement as written is awfully vague. Pine 00:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should modify this language to reflect its application to only solicitation for improper purposes. Finding the right language will be the challenge, but I'm encouraged by some of the recommendations. Geoffbrigham 16:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 22:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

7. How Content Is Licensed

Resolved.

If one was to interwiki import a text with the hyperlink as a means of attribution and this imported text got worked on further, potential re-users of that second text would have to provide two links, to both of these pages. This is because on the second article's history, the original authors would not get credited in a manner equivalent to the original page history (author names versus page link). Imo this should get addressed in sections (d) and (h).--141.84.69.20 20:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Section 7 in the new user agreement is simply a rewrite (and not a significant one) of the original terms of use, which focuses on these licensing issues. Believe it or not, we actually tried to simplify the language and make the section easier to read for users. (I think there is still quite a bit of work to do in that area.) There is no intent however to change the substance, since continuity is important. (We may need to eventually make some changes in light of the changing Creative Commons licenses, however, but that is not the issue here.) I think I understand the problem that you have identified, but would you be able to propose some language that I could play with? That would be quite helpful. I note that, as we do in the present terms of use, we say in Section 7(c): "the attribution requirements are sometimes too instrusive for particular circumstances (regardless of the license) and there may be instances where the Wikimedia Community decides that imported text cannot be used for that reason." Geoffbrigham 16:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 22:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ban these Terms of use

Resolved.

I believe that we will prevent the realisation of these terms of use by the German courts, inclusive the bullshit of DMCA and so on. And also it is my considered opinion that it will become necessary, preconceiving the bold attempt to censorship our project by launching image filtering, to fork the European wikipedias from the christian fundamentalism and other rubbish in the US. -- Sozi 07:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This anti-american rant is pretty clueless. Freedom of speech is estimated much more in the US (en:First Amendment to the United States Constitution) than it is in Germany, see for example en:Laws_against_Holocaust_denial or the debates around de:Soldaten sind Mörder or de:Lebach-Urteil. A germany-based Wikipedia would hardly be possible, considering how often the german chapter had to take down its redirect wikipedia.de in the past because of some preliminary injunction. --Tinz 14:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make this proposal any better and who had spoken about placing the server inside Germany? At least it should be clear that i will not accept terms of use in English language. --Niabot 15:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel confident that we will be able to set up the infrastructure to fork from this project, the only problem is to decide it and to stay in this decision. -- Sozi 16:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is strange to hear someone praise the alleged "free speech" rights in a country where it is actually illegal to make factual statements like "Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber murdered en:Walter Sedlmayr", despite those two men having been convicted of murder and sent to prison for it. Germany permits speech only if the government believes your speech is suitable for society, and it has decided that saying someone is a convicted murderer is unhelpful to the social goal of helping ex-cons get jobs and make friends. WhatamIdoing 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Tinz. U know exactly as I am that its impossible to win a trial within one (1) year in the States...there is nothing about German vs. American Law. Those terms are prohibiting each and every mourning about anything. If I would agree to that, I would agree to a totalitarian system...--Angel54 5 17:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that censors have often been foiled by the ability of people to shift content from one country to the other over the internet, so it is equally clear that Wikimedia should remain multinational. Wherever people can maintain it, they should maintain their freedom to provide all the information that is known. But this current controversy is not between the U.S. and Germany, nor even really about freedom of speech, but between the old noble Wikipedia that became one of the leading sites in the world, and some proposed pusillanimous Wikipedia that reserves the right to turn on its users and control content from the top down. Wnt 18:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats what I meant - thank u for ur very clear words. I agree: control content from the top down....--Angel54 5 18:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"You think you have freedom of speech? You can't handle freedom of speech!"

Having said that most of the restrictions on FoS don't impact (currently) our projects in a major way, with the obvious exceptions of IPRs and China.

The reason we should not have these terms of use are far more fundamental. We don't need them. Occam's razor applies here in spades. Regardless of the amount of money and time we spend on stuff like this, it is all pretty much going to be either redundant or of dubious enforceability (or both). Additionally it makes us look like a meat-headed corporation run by lawyers and accountants - whose actions are predicated on fear, rather than vision. As things stand contributors are liable for their actions, WMF is liable for it's actions and that's how it should be. And futzing with terms and conditions, is likely to muddy this bright line distinction. In the event, however, that we for some reason decide we absolutely must have something like this, it would be worth checking if it will make the WMF's projects illegal in the EU under new laws designed to protect the individual from the corporate web sites legal trickery. Rich Farmbrough 01:00 14 September 2011 (GMT).

The location of the servers or the headquarter of the Foundation is irrelevant. According to the "principle of national protection" (see de:Schutzlandprinzip - unfortunately there is no article about this in any other Wikipedia than the German one) the laws of this country have to be used in which the Wikipedia language version is mostly consulted. Therefore i. e. German Wikipedia is liable to the laws of Germany/Austria/Switzerland and thus i. e. the DMCA is invalid there (and also in all other Wikipedias than the English one; but even there it is disputable because you have also to take account of the UK/Australia/Canada etc.). Chaddy 03:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The application of Schutzlandprinzip to websites appears to be based specifically in German and Austrian law, rather than in international treaties, and even in German law it does not appear to be perfectly clear. But even if we accept that principle, the fact is that you are assuming that de.wikipedia.org is a completely separate website from all wikipedia.org. I am not convinced that even a German court would agree with you. I believe the German court would say that de.wikipedia.org is part of wikipedia.org, exactly like news.bbc.co.uk is part of bbc.co.uk. WhatamIdoing 17:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a clear priciple. And it's also not specifically based in German and Austrian law. It's part of the en:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the en:Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the en:World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and the en:Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.

The court would say that de.wikipedia.org is mainly consulted by German-speaking users and thus falls under German jurisdiction. Youtube could write a book about this problem (the GEMA enforced them to censor or eben block many videos with copyrighted music tracks for users with a German IP - also official music videos). Chaddy 17:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are many international conventions about copyright. However, so far, only the German and Austrian courts think that the location of the viewer's computer, rather than the publisher's computer, determines which country's copyright law applies. The WMF has previously told the German courts that the WMF doesn't believe that German laws apply to Wikipedia[4] (although the German laws presumably apply to individual German citizens who use Wikipedia)—and so far as I can tell, the German courts have not disagreed with the WMF's position that German law is irrelevant to the WMF's actions. WhatamIdoing 19:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, since the content page had been brought to my attention at de.wikipedia, and thereupon for my part tried to bring it to a broader attention there, I may, if not apologize, then express my regrets that by now this page seems to contain a number of threats that do not pertain to the actual topic of the content page, or some unnecessary attacks and arguments, and my hope that a discussion of the proposed terms of use can take place either on this page or at other places. Some notes on statements in this section:

• there are no "European" Wikipedias since language versions are neither culture, nor country (nor continental) versions.
• it is not illegal in Germany to make statements like "Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber murdered en:Walter Sedlmayr"
• I can't see from the linked article when WMF has told any German court that WMF does not believe that German laws apply to Wikipedia. Instead the article says:

>>In a written response to Mr. Stopp, Wikimedia questioned the relevance of any judgments in the German courts, since, it said, it has no operations in Germany and no assets there<<,

where Mr. Stopp is a lawyer who doesn't represent any German court,

Greetings --Rosenkohl 21:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So are you going to add the murderers' names to de:Walter Sedlmayr, and risk being sued, or are you going to follow the lead of all the other Germans who have censored it and say that it must remain censored because of German law?

I'm not sure where the link is these days, but the WMF's letter to the German courts was released, and it says that the WMF is not subject to any German laws. WhatamIdoing 16:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the current version of the pertaining policy de:Wikipedia:Artikel über lebende Personen of the German Wikipedia, and think it is unnecessarily restrictive, and that the Wikimedia Foundation would have good chances to eventually win a case at the highest German court, like a number of other publisher have won cases in the last years in similar cases of providing archives with newspaper articles with the names of murderers of Walter Sedlmayr. But for time being I've stopped to participate in the discussion of this Wikipedia policy, and one reason why I stopped is that in the article you linked above lawyers who work for Wikimedia Germany give their opinion about German law that suggests not to add the names in the German Wikipedia, Greetings --Rosenkohl 20:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The German courts have agreed that it is not necessary to purge archives. The newspaper need not throw away its historical copies, or go to the library and steal the library's copies of old newspapers. But it is still illegal for Germans to make new references to the fact that these two men were convicted of the murder.

The New York Times article does not quote any lawyers working for Wikipedia Germany. Wikipedia Germany has no lawyers. The article quotes the sole WMF lawyer, who says that de.wiki is welcome to censor itself if that's what its German-speaking editors choose to do, but the WMF is not going to force en.wiki to censor itself if the its English-speaking editors don't choose to do so. WhatamIdoing 22:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the en:Federal Court of Justice of Germany has overruled lower and intermediate local courts (e.g. many decisions of de:Landgericht Hamburg#Pressekammer and the de:Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht), so that online newspaper archives don't have to purge their online archives. I don't think that German courts have ever ordered to purge public paper copy archives or librarys because of the names of murderers are mentioned in articles. It is not at all illegal for Germans to make new references to the fact that these two men were convicted of the murder. At most it is illegal for German television programs which show actors impersonating a historical crime case to mention the full names of living criminals who will be soon, or have already been released.

The linked article is almost two years old, but currently at least #If you were wondering what this page is about... speaks of a "legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation" where probably several lawyers are working.

Above I didn't write at all that the lawyers are working for "Wikipedia Germany". I'm not sure if the linked article is correct that the Berlin law firm in fact has ever represented the US-based Wikimedia Foundation, but I know that this law firm is working for the association Wikimedia_Deutschland/en (Wikimedia Germany) which is the German chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, --Rosenkohl 09:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we are having a language problem. Here's what I said:

• In a news story printed in 2005, it was legal for a German newspaper to say "Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber murdered en:Walter Sedlmayr".
• In a brand-new, news story, written this morning and printed today, in 2011, it is not legal for a German newspaper to print that sentence.

Do you understand the difference? WhatamIdoing 16:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I have a reading problem, since I don't see where you've made this two statements exactly before. Instead, above you've made other statements, some of them evidently wrong or inaccurate. I don't know to which exact two news storys "printed in 2005" or from "today in 2011" you refer now, or if you just mention these as two hpyothetical example news storys; at least you don't give sources for your two statements, and I doubt there are valid sources, --Rosenkohl 20:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have not used those specific examples before, because I previously thought that you would grasp the important difference between "is" (present tense) and "was" (past tense). Do you understand how these two statements are different? Do you understand that the sentence that was perfectly legal for a German newspaper to publish, using ink on newsprint (paper) in 2005 (while Werlé and Lauber were in prison) is not legal for that same German newspaper to publish today, in 2011, using ink on newsprint, now that they are not in prison? WhatamIdoing 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You make claims, but don't give sources for what you claim. It is useless to discuss unsubstantiatet claims on the internet. There is neither a law, nor any high court decision which would prohibit German newspapers from publishing this sentence after the persons have been released from prison. Perhaps in practice, most of the major German newspapers avoid to print this sentence today for some reason; perhaps they are afraid to lose a lawsuit at lower or intermediate courts, perhaps no publishing house wants to lead an example case to the highest court. But this does not mean at all that the sentence was illegal for them to print today. For another example, Michaela Roeder was convicted to 11 years of prison in 1989. Nevertheless, in 2006 http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-45624791.html is printing the full names of Olaf Däter and Roeder, while it abreviates the last names of Wolfgang L. and Stephan L. It seem the Spiegel has purged all its archive articles from the names of Werle and Lauber, while it still provides articles from 1993 with the full name of Wolfgang Lange (Wolfgang L.), see http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13680581.html. So obviously major German newspapers decide about abreviating or purging names of convicted person on a case by case basis, and not for pure reasons of legality. For example, in December 2006 even judge Buske at the Landgericht Hamburg, refused a request for a preliminary injunction against "Wikipedia" (perhaps Wikipedia means Wikimedia Foundation here) to publish the name of one murderer of Walter Sedlmayr, see http://www.buskeismus.de/urteile/324O95206_archive.htm. So your claims about the legal situation in Germany are not only unsourced but even wrong. --Rosenkohl 10:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 22:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No right to change the TOU!

Resolved.

You, the Wikimedia Foundation, do not have the right to change your terms of use. As stated in the current terms of use, you must not change them. Just look at the first bottom sentence. And even if that wouldn´t be there, the current terms of use don´t give you any right to change them without the agreement of all current users, who are part of that. The terms of Use are a treaty with two sides: If you don´t have the right to change it alone because it is stated in it, you need both partner´s agreement. But it states that changes are forbidden, so...--89.204.137.196 07:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. The current terms of use are not to be modified—by Wikimedia editors, not by the WMF. The WMF owns the whole enterprise, and they can offer you access to their privately owned websites under any terms they want. They have the legal right to change the terms every single day of the year, if that's what makes them happy. They can even close the whole thing down with no warning, or ban users based on a random number generator, or blindly delete all of your changes, or charge you for editing.

Users like you and me have almost no legally enforceable rights here. Our actual substantive rights as editors are two: to start our own website and to go away (mad, if necessary). If you don't like the WMF's new terms (assuming they choose to adopt them), then I suggest that you exercise your right to go away. If you choose to use a WMF website, then you must accept their terms of use. WhatamIdoing 17:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats exactly why we should move away from the WMF. Creating a fork and ensure by contract that the communities will have veto rights against changes. --Niabot 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Die Foundation ist nichts ohne ihre Autoren. Vielleicht sollte man wirklich einen Fork machen um den Damen und Herren in Frisco zu zeigen auf wessen Arbeitskraft ihre sogenannte Macht beruht. Liesel 17:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to jump in here and say that (if I understand the German well enough), that Liesel is correct. The Foundation is nothing without volunteer authors, and it cannot do "whatever it wants" at all times. We're accountable to the community in a very real way, both through the fact that our actions are publicly assessed in places like this, but also legally because we are responsible directly to the Board of Trustees, the majority of which is elected from the community. It is the express job of the legal department at the Foundation to work on improving our terms of use if they think there are legal risks for the movement. But that doesn't mean we own the projects. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the WMF does own the projects. The WMF does not own the volunteers. Volunteers ≠ projects. WhatamIdoing 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You should add: It does not own the content - at least not alone. It does not own the authorship and it can't survive without it's authors. --Niabot 21:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ein Teil dieser Aspekte gedachte ich hier ja bereits festzuhalten

Darüber sollte man wirklich ernsthaft nachdenken, zumal sich die Foundation vom spendenfinanzierten Verein immer mehr hin zu einem Wirtschaftsunternehmen (zwar lebend von den Spenden und der Arbeitskraft Freiwilliger Sklaven) entwickelt, dem offensichtlich die Grundprinzipien fremd geworden sind, bzw. nicht mehr zu tangieren scheinen, so wie man es entsprechend nebenstehender Karikatur als Kritikpunkt entnehmen kann. Die erste zu klärende Frage wäre die Finanzierung eines solchen Vorhabens. Naheliegend könnte es sein die deutschen Spendengelder in eine entsprechende Alternative zu investieren und nicht mehr der Foundation so großzügig in den Hals zu werfen, der dadurch wohl schon derart verstopft ist, dass es die Hauptschlagadern abdrückt. --Niabot 18:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if volunteers get mad at the WMF, they can leave. Yes, you could create a a competing project. But most volunteers will not object to the new (proposed) terms of use, so most volunteers will not choose to leave. Despite all your talk about leaving, I expect you to still be here next year. Most people who talk about leaving Wikimedia—are just talking, not leaving. WhatamIdoing 19:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, u definitly dont have the right to banish all that volunteer authors have done so far to trash...thats what u are doing. The "right to leave" is getting the "pressure to leave" under those conditions. Means: u want to get rid of certain authors. Critics arent welcome, they have to be thrown out. U r undemocratic, go to Syria...--Angel54 5 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC) And btw: ur statement was more than cynical, so I used the same attitude...

I fully agree that Wikimedia is little without its volunteers, who have developed this incredible site with their own knowledge, sweat, and research. I'm hearing strong views against a user agreement, and seeing others that are supportive. What I do hope, if we do have a new terms of use, that this version will capture the spirit of the Community and the importance of our editors. It may require some rewriting, but that is my goal. Geoffbrigham 21:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 22:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

WSJ Op-Ed "Should Faking a Name on Facebook Be a Felony?"

For people who may be skeptical about the problem of violations of site Terms Of Use becoming criminal charges, or used for frivolous legal action, there's a current Op-Ed on the issue in the Wall Street Journal by well-known conservative law professor Orin Kerr "Should Faking a Name on Facebook Be a Felony?": "The little-known law at issue is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It was enacted in 1986 to punish computer hacking. But Congress has broadened the law every few years, and today it extends far beyond hacking. The law now criminalizes computer use that "exceeds authorized access" to any computer. Today that violation is a misdemeanor, but the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to meet this morning to vote on making it a felony.". So the potential for abuse is quite relevant. -- Seth Finkelstein 13:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that if breaching the Terms of Use is a felony then any prosecutor can decide to take it on himself to enforce those terms, for example by prosecuting an editor for a good faith edit which the prosecutor doesn't like. Do we need to make it clear that the board is the ultimate arbitor of what does and does not breach the terms of use? This is another reason for making the terms vague. It's easy to launch a prosecution and take someone to court for 'harassment' or 'posting a lie'. You will look a bit silly taking someone to court for 'failing to imagine a world where every human can share in the sum of all knowledge'. Elected prosecutors don't like to look silly.--Filceolaire 21:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The vaguer the terms, the easier it is to abuse them. If you think that anyone can launch a prosecution for "harassment" because it's so vague, then imagine how easy it would be to prosecute someone for "failing to further the vision". Even refusing to donate money to the WMF could count as "not furthering the vision". WhatamIdoing 22:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? Then we need to make it clear it is up to the Foundation to decide whether your actions do or do not breach the TOU. If the board declare a user has not gone against the WMF vision then any prosecution in a court is much more difficult to prosecute. Harassment is a legal term. Imagining a world is not. The foundation is obviously the authority on what does and does not go against our vision but the courts get to decide what is harassment.--Filceolaire 23:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are concerned about people being sent to prison for doing online what is perfectly legal when they do it in person or on a piece of paper, then you need to fix the laws that pretend using a fake name on Facebook could be a felony when using a fake name in every other social circumstance is 100% protected free speech. WhatamIdoing 17:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As I understand, Senators Grassley and Franken have introduced an amendment which would modify the definition of "exceeds authorized access" in 18 U.S.C. 1030 to exclude violations of a TOS, if that's the only basis for the charge. Geoffbrigham 22:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 22:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

federal or state law

Resolved.

As well as repetition there is an inconsistency and even contradiction, with multiple references to:

1. "the laws of the United States and of your home country"
2. "the laws of the United States, where we are based, and the laws of your home country and jurisdiction."
3. "the laws of the United States or your own country or jurisdiction"
4. "any applicable law or regulation"
5. "U.S. federal or state law concerning child pornography"
6. "any federal or state law otherwise intended to protect the health or well-being of minors"
7. "the laws of the State of California and, to the extent applicable, the laws of the United States of America"

In my opinion shortest is usually best, and "any applicable law or regulation" is the only one that covers the not uncommon eventuality of editing whilst travelling abroad (I've edited Wikimedia sites from computers in at least four different countries, as well as the one I live in). I'm assuming that the omission of "U.S." from "any federal or state law otherwise intended to protect the health or well-being of minors" was simply a typo, and we don't have to try and comply with the Federal laws of some countries that for example criminalise homosexuality. I'd suggest removing the redundancy and if you must spell out which laws apply ask your lawyers to concoct some legalese to the effect of:

As we are based in the US state of California, your editing of and downloading from our sites must comply with the law here, as well as wherever you are when you edit. (I'm hoping that as I type this the only laws I have to comply with are those here in London where I'm typing and over in San Francisco. Nigerian Federal law, Alaskan state law and indeed the state and Federal law of Dafur state in Sudan are hopefully as irrelevant to my editing as English law would be to editors in Dafur, Lagos or Alaska. WereSpielChequers 17:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions here. Thanks. Geoffbrigham 22:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically, it works like this:

• Because the WMF is in California, USA, everybody has to comply with the laws that affect the WMF.
• If (and only if) you aren't also an American national, then you must additionally comply with your own nation's laws
• If (and only if) you aren't also located in California, USA, then you must additionally comply with any and all local laws that you are subject to.
• The set of "laws that apply to the WMF because the WMF is in California, USA" and "laws that apply to you because of your nationality or location" are what is indicated above. WhatamIdoing 22:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Next - u dont know what u r doing? This means in reverse, if the WMF has complaints, each author of a world wide project has to go to California to make that case? U know exactly, what u r doing!--Angel54 5 22:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Each word u write is an abysmal infamy, in ur opinion the not donating people are hindering the progress of WMF? To donate means, to give sth. freely...if I had the money, I really would publish those sentences of narrow-minded people in twenty of the biggest newspapers worldwide, to hinder that people donate money than help such OTT people like u.--Angel54 5 22:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that a donation benefits me?

My relationship to the WMF is exactly the same as yours: I'm a volunteer editor. WhatamIdoing 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Just that Angel 54 is indefinitely blocked account at his home wiki, confirmed by de-ArbCom. It is probably wisest to ignore him. --Tinz 22:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Didnt know this discussion is about me. Seems to me that Admin S1, who banned my account there is meanwhile banned himself. U dont know nothing...ignore who u want to ignore.--Angel54 5 10:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Re to Whatamidoing, yes I agree that's presumably what they were intending to say. My concern is that the current draft is long winded and ambiguous. There is a separate issue that Angel raises as to what the terms should say. My concern in starting this particular thread is that we should reword this for clarity and consistency - and that needs to be done whatever the terms are supposed to mean. Remember we are a charity devoted to summing the world's information for all. If we can't phrase our own legal statements in a clear and understandable way, how are we supposed to handle complex stuff like Astrophysics and Philosophy? WereSpielChequers 14:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have used the phrase: "the laws of the United States and other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content)." After using that phrase, I then shortened to the term: "applicable laws." I have not changed the venue qualification in Section 13, since that geographical location is specific for legal reasons. I understand that there is some concern about that provision, but I suggest we discuss that concept separately. Geoffbrigham 02:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 11:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Do You really want to collect huge amounts of personal data for obscure purposes?

Resolved.

The euphemism keep only a limited amount of information at „2. Please Look at Our Privacy Policy“ very poorly disguises the ongoing of the current attempt to collect huge amounts of personal data of editors for uncountable and unforseeable purposes.

If You wanted to strengthen the community You would have bound Yourself by writing:

"We keep only as much data as necessary to write an encyclopedia. We only use Your data for the purpose it was given for".

If You will not do this You will get in rough trouble with European data privacy legislation and judiciary. In Germany currently it is seriously doubted that commercial Wikipedia mirrors are legal because the history of article pages hast to show full IP-adresses. This ten years of unshortened IP-adresses with exact to the second edit-times allow to generate detailed user-profiles which in addition is made far easier by the toolserver. But I'm sure: A ten years old dynamic IP-adress isnt't necessary either for vandal hunting or for copyright purposes.

So please stop data mining, start freedom of personal data. --79.226.62.194 11:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The licenses (GFDL and CC-BY-SA) require some sort of identifying information for the person making a change. For people who do not choose to create an account, their IP address is the designated identifier. The IP address is retained solely for the purpose of complying with the legal requirements of the license, and only to the extent that is necessary for that purpose. Under all other circumstances, identifying information (which includes not only your IP information, but also things like what sort of computer browser you're using) is normally retained by the WMF only for a few months. WhatamIdoing 17:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1. It is a fairy tale that CC-BY-SA or GFDL would require that. I becomes not truth by repeating. These licences require no identifyng. They only require the name of the authors (of more than marginal edits). So first an author who does not give his name waives this right. An IP is no name. So we can shorten this IPs.
2. The sentence "The IP address is retained solely for the purpose of complying with the legal requirements of the license" is wrong. We only need the order of edits in history, but not day, minute and second. And we do not need the exact date of editing longer than three months for vandal fighting.
3. "identifying information (which includes not only your IP information, but also things like what sort of computer browser you're using) is normally retained by the WMF only for a few months." is exactly what I wrote: Collecting huge amounts of personal data for obscure purposes. You need this data (legally) only for CUs. CUs should be done in one month (or three?). So you should automatically delete this data after one month (or three?).

--79.226.62.194 06:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The GFDL does not require specifically that IPs be used, but it requires that something be used to identify the contributor, and IP addresses have been chosen. Everyone who makes an edit while unregistered or logged out is informed of this fact. WhatamIdoing 22:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The GFDL (4.B) requires only five of the principal authors. I seriously doubt that IP adresses are authors or names of authors. Because only principal authors are required, it is no problem to skip at least minor IP edits. (Same with cc-by-sa)

If "IP addresses have been chosen" it is no problem to choose again. For a computer this change would only be routine work. You have computers, haven't You? Why don't You choose a consecutive alphanumerical number for each IP-edit? You could nevertheless reveal the IP adress to editors for a limited period of time (x <= 1 month) to fight vandalism. --79.226.48.69 10:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If we did not use the IP address to comply with the license, then we would not be retaining it. For all other purposes, the information is normally purged within a few months. WhatamIdoing 22:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"is normally purged within a few months" is too soft. It could be two months or nine. This is an invitation to favour someone. Make a binding statement which treats everybody equal:

• "This kind of information will be purged automatically after three months."

Additionally You forgot that editing with IP adress can also be perceived as waiving the right of mentioning someones name. In fact IPs have no other means to waive the mentioning of their names. Because dynamic IPs are allocated to different people after each other they don't represent a name nor an individual. If You fill out a form field "name" with a random number like the current time code or an IP adress You don't give a name. Similar the number in the header of an OTRS-ticket does not represent the name of someone. --79.226.48.69 10:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the information needed by the devs and the checkusers (a process that is not legally required) and to assist law enforcement requests (a process that is only legally required if you freely choose to collect the information in the first place) is either "obscure" or "huge amounts of personal data". It is less than what many sites choose to collect, and the uses are plainly described in the terms of use. WhatamIdoing 22:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

1. It is obscure because it is not said numerative and exhaustive what data is stored, how long it is stored, and that data which is said not to be stored nevertheless is stored in public edit filters.
2. It is a "huge amount of personal data" because Wikipedia is very successful. German and English articles together are more then 5 millions, not counted meta and discussion pages. And this is very sensitive data because You can easily filter it by opinion and personal interest.

You are right that checkusers and law enforcement requests are principal good reasons to use this data. But citizens need to be protected against laws which collect to much private data (Big brother is watching You). If You don't have data on IPs older then three months, no law can collect it. All people are treated equal then. --79.226.48.69 10:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the above discussion concerns more the privacy policy than the terms of use. The privacy policy makes clear that, for those who do not register, a user will be "identified by network IP address." Whether that is a good idea or not is probably more relevant in discussing the privacy policy. The terms of use simply seeks to remind users to read the privacy policy. It is true that, compared to other sites, we process only a minimal amount of personal information. In addition, for those who do not register, we need an effective and unique way to identify editors to comply with attribution requirements. Geoffbrigham 23:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither what data is collected nor "the uses are plainly described in the terms of use."

You cannot easily find the information

• how long IP data of authors with accounts is stored
• that data which is officially not saved is nevertheless saved in public readable edit filters (including IPs)
• that with help of toolserver you can easily make individual profiles of even IP users for a period longer then ten years.
• that not only the external but also the internal IPs are stored for an unknown amount of time
• that Wikipedia stores browser identification and preferred language (and an unknown amount of further information) for an unknown amount of time for checkuser purposes

before you click on save page. So the consent to save this data is at least questionable. I dont't think minors have an overview on what they reveal by editing Wikipedia, so there consent is null and void.--79.226.48.69 10:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. --Mdennis (WMF) 22:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)