有关不披露有偿编辑的董事会公开信

来自董事会的信

董事会已经仔细地跟进关于使用协议中付费编辑的公开要求的公开讨论。我们感谢每个在分享其思考与经验上投资时间的人。您们的评论在理解这个复杂问题的不同观点上非常有用。

作为这次咨询以及我们自己的审查和讨论的结果，我们正在修改使用条款，以强制披露付费编辑。这反映了公众讨论中对这一倡议的强烈支持。使用条款现在将要求编辑在相关用户页面、讨论页或编辑摘要上“披露[他们的]雇主、客户和隶属关系，涉及[他们]收到或期望获得补偿的任何贡献”。个别项目可以通过采用替代付费编辑披露政策来选择退出。

该修正案旨在为善意的编辑提供指导和信息；协助社区和基金会评估和处理有偿宣传编辑；并允许对当地条件和需求做出反应。

它补充了现有的规则和政策，这些规则和政策共同维护和提高维基媒体内容的可信度。例如，使用条款已经禁止欺骗性活动，此修正案有助于解释如何代表一个人的隶属关系以避免与这些条款发生冲突。除法律要求外，许多社区政策还要求或强烈鼓励将付费编辑作为潜在的利益冲突进行披露。

Several editors raised concerns about the impact of this amendment on good-faith editors, such as first-time editors who aren’t familiar with our rules, or editors who work on projects with GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives and museums) or with universities. We ask everyone to be respectful of others and to help enforce existing community practices and policies about privacy and harassment, even in cases of suspected paid advocacy editing. The amendment is not intended to impact participants in GLAM projects, or professors, when they are writing about topics of general interest on their own, rather than writing about their own institutions while being compensated directly quid pro quo, for example.

Given the complexity of the issue, the Wikimedia Foundation will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the amendment, and remain open to changes as necessary to improve it. We thank everyone who participated in the community consultation.

If you have further comments, you may leave feedback on Meta. Details on the legal issues and risk associated with undisclosed paid advocacy editing may be found in this FAQ.

修正案语言

The language of the amendment - set out below - reflects the original version proposed to the community, plus the “option 3” version raised in the community discussion. This "option 3" version gives communities discretion to adjust the rules for their specific community after following standard consensus-driven decision-making processes.

基于上述理由，下面的文本将在2014年6月16日被加入到使用协议的第四节（“Refraining from Certain Activities”）并生效：