Talk:Terms of use

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 365 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 3650 days. For the archive overview, see Talk:Terms of use/Archives.

TOS;DR[edit]

The (relatively new), peer-edited service Terms of Service; Didn't Read seems to give Wiki*edia a lower rating than it might. For instance, its output is reported through the DuckDuckGo browser extension as "Unknown Privacy Practices," which inaccurate. But, I'm not sure if DuckDuckGo is getting the most up-to-date information; for instance, looking at Wikipedia's entry, it has more granular information, under a heading that states they haven't sufficiently reviewed the terms yet.

I'm no expert, but I believe the concern about tracking technologies is overstated -- it seems to me that Wikimedia sites are incredibly conservative and thoughtful in their use of these, and are perhaps getting a negative rating as a result of being more upfront about what little tracking technology they do use. (If my beliefs are out of date, though, I'd like to know about that too.) I think this criticism is unfounded, as the entire point of wiki sites is to publish indelible public information; it's not a secret side effect like it might be on some other sites. This criticism (which appears to have a lower value) also seems inappropriate, since Wikimedia's global nature is an inherent and important part of its identity. Etc.

I've only just begun exploring this, but I think it would be worthwhile to have more eyes on it, and maybe send a well-informed suggestion (or edit) their way. Ideally, I think it would be worthwhile to have both WMF staff and volunteer attention on this. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarification: This service has been around since at least 2012, so my statement that it's "relatively new" was inaccurate. I think what is new is the partnership with DuckDuckGo, the exposure that goes along with it, and the resulting volunteer editing. Regardless, I think as an increasingly visible project, this deserves from attention from anyone who cares about Wikimedia's reputation for user-facing policy. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's a nice service worth contributing to. Until a few years ago they mostly focused on the largest social networks and similar commercial services, it's good news if they now manage to cover more. It would be especially good if we managed to highlight how different we are from others in terms of (non) appropriation of the users' copyright. Nemo 08:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


Amend 7b here, in order to correctly comply with 4c(iv) & 4a of CC SA-BY 3.0?[edit]

7b includes:

"Attribution: ... When you contribute text, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions:"


I suggest the above be changed to the following, in order to resolve the issue highlighted here:

"Attribution: ... When you contribute text, you agree that being attributed in any of the following fashions, is sufficient author credit for all forms of re-use of your contribution:"


Optionally, text like the following can also be added to 7b:

"In particular, your agreement to this term means that you and Wikipedia jointly request re-users of your contributions licensed under CC SA-BY 3.0, to not include credits in accordance with 4(c) of CC SA-BY 3.0, other than as stipulated in this term in those situations where re-users would prefer to only include credits in one of the ways specified in this term."


--MarkJFernandes (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


Delete these terms and instead link to https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en[edit]

Just did a document comparison with the terms on foundation.wikimedia.org. They are virtually the same. This is not good for users. To prevent a user unnecessarily reading these terms twice (each reading being something of an effort given their length), it should be clear that these two terms documents are one and the same. This is probably best done by deleting these terms, and linking to the other terms.

🔗 ← More advice on Wiki Foundation terms.


MarkJFernandes (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews and CC-BY 2.5[edit]

Hello, tell me please, why does this project still have an old license? Iniquity (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Attribution requirement – What if time zone information is missed in the edit summary[edit]

This is a question escalated from the Japanese Wikipedia (JAWP). Could anyone tell us whether time zone information is mandatory or optional for translation works to comply with the attribution terms of use as well as CC-BY-SA? In order to meet the attribution requirements in the terms of use (Article 7(b)), JAWP local guideline for translation works specifically requires us

  • 1 To enter the hyperlink of the original work into the edit summary field WITH either
  • 2-1 Date and time of the version, or
  • 2-2 Oldid

If forgot date and time or oldid, the translator would need to do so in the next edit. However, what if he/she included date and time, but WITOUT time zone information? I am afraid such a way of attribution might not fulfill Wikimedia’s term of use.

CASE STUDY 1
Suppose that w:en: Dog has an edit history page with
  • A 13:00, July 2, 2020 (UTC) edited by Hanako (+1,000 bytes)
  • B 18:45, July 2, 2020 (UTC) edited by Goro (+1,500 bytes)
  • C 22:00, July 2, 2020 (UTC) edited by Taro (+2,000 bytes)

And then, Aya (JAWP translator) translates the article from English to Japanese, and then fills the edit summary of w:ja: 犬 (meaning: Dog in Japanese) like this

“Translated from [[:en: Dog]] 22:00, July 1, 2020”

Aya carelessly forgot to mention the time zone. Her edit summary could mean either A (in Japan (UTC +9)), B (in Nepal (UTC +5:45)), or C (UTC). Does this case still comply with the attribution requirement of the terms of use?

As far as I know, BY of CC-BY-SA license is based on the Right to Attribution of w:en: Moral rights under copyright laws. And Aya failed to attribute her derivative work (translation) to which version of the English article, so nobody can tell who, out of the three ENWP contributors, are attributed. Therefore, Aya violated the attribution terms of use, in my opinion.

The rationale behind my understanding is here: the ENWP contributors could sue Aya for copyright infringement, if any, through her translation work. But if she did not specify which version of the English article, the plaintiff could be only Hanako, Goro and/or Taro – that is troublesome. So, I think mentioning time zone information is extremely critical to comply with CC-BY-SA.

CASE STUDY 2
The same article, the same action taken by Aya on JAWP, but different edit history with ENWP.
  • A 13:00, July 1, 2020 (UTC) edited by Hanako (+1,000 bytes)
  • B 22:00, July 2, 2020 (UTC) edited by Goro (+1,500 bytes)
  • C 23:00, July 3, 2020 (UTC) edited by Taro (+2,000 bytes)

And then Aya declared on JAWP:

“Translated from [[:en: Dog]] 22:00, July 1, 2020”

In that case scenario, only B is possible. Thus, Aya successfully fulfilled the terms of use.

However, some JAWP contributors contradict my understanding, literally interpreting the words of the terms of use (Article 7 (b)):

Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors)

In both CASE 1 and CASE 2, they believe that Aya did not violate the terms of use at all simply because Aya included the hyperlink in the edit summary. In other words, the three of ENWP contributors agree to partially waive their rights to attribution by clicking the "agree" button. If so, the abovementioned JAWP local guideline for translation works should be revised (i.e. requires only hyperlinks and omits date/time as well as oldid from the guideline, or at least downgrade the binding status from requirement to recommendation).

Thank you for reading and looking forward to your thoughts. --ProfessorPine (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


Comment Comment
Hello,
I found how to display copyright information (which means so-called "attribution") on materials. An official page at creativecommons.org tells as follows:

You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information. See at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode#s3a

"The required information" must include "the required information" as mentioned above. Such information includes "identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution". Therefore, my conclusion is that if a URI or hyperlink does NOT include this kind of information, it is against CC license's policy, but it is just my opinion though.

Thank you. --Green (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. - I tried printing this page as PDF. Then copyright status appeared at the bottom as below:

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use&oldid=20329275"
This page was last edited on 1 August 2020, at 08:57.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.

It seems to me "time stamp" must be important as you insist. --Green (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)