Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2012-03

How's progress?

Any updates on where this is going and what the next steps are? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The board is still voting on it (sorry, we are slow!) but should approve it soon; and then we will post it on the WMF site and adopt it globally. I'm not sure what other rollout steps are planned. -- phoebe | talk 23:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Terms of Use approved by the Board

The Board has formally approved the new terms of use. I want to thank the community again for all its work on this document. This was the most community-negotiated agreement for any major website. It was an amazing process for me, and, because of you, the final version is a much better document than the first draft proposed many months ago.

For legal reasons, we will need to announce the new terms of use before we substitute them for the old version. We will be planning that this week and implementing the announcement shortly. Of course, you are free to share as you see appropriate. Geoffbrigham (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we want to continue translating?

Given that the text is finalized, are we (volunteer translators) expected to complete translating the new Terms of use? I am willing to help it, but before doing so, I wanted to know what the Foundation is planning to do with the translation. For example, if it will be done by professional translators, then it would not be a very high priority for us to make intensive proofreading regarding legal terminology etc. --whym 13:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get you an answer to that today, Whym, but I believe that volunteer assistance is appreciated where available, since money spent on professional translators can be put into other areas of development if it is not needed. But we are having a conference this afternoon about implementing this policy, and it will be on my list of things to talk about in case I'm wrong. Thank you very much for bringing up the question! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we would greatly appreciate translation of the Terms of Use. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply, that cleared my concern. I don't have to hesitate anymore :) --whym (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for the New Terms of Use

A copy of the announcement from the mailing lists by the Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel
Hi, In the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been examining for some time whether, as the 5th largest website in the world, we need a new terms of use agreement. Given our size and the need to ensure good communication with our users, I think we do, so we’ve put ourselves to drafting a new version with the hopes that we could get your review, comments, and ideas. You can find the current version of our terms of use here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use . You can view the new draft here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use As I see it, right now our present terms of use is not much more than a licensing agreement. It does not address a number of other subjects that are normally found in terms of use of other community-driven websites and that are often relevant for both legal and community reasons. See, as examples, the Mozilla Terms of Use (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Terms%20of%20Service) and Creative Commons Terms of Use (https://creativecommons.org/terms) . What we would like to do is to invite you to read the draft, reflect on it, and leave your comments and feedback on the discussion page. We plan to leave this version up for at least 30 days; indeed, a 30-day comment period for changes is built into the new draft. Our plan is to review the comments and feedback, make appropriate changes and edits, return with a revised version, and, if appropriate, propose that draft to the Board of Trustees for adoption and translation. Generally, we sought to craft a document that is more even-handed, shorter, and easier-to-read than most user agreements. Although we encourage you to read the entire draft, here are some key provisions to give you some flavor: Security: The proposed agreement prohibits a number of actions - like malware - that could compromise our systems. We thought we should be clear as to what is unacceptable in this area, though most of these restrictions will not be surprising. Roles and responsibilities: We feel we need to be honest with the community on a number of issues, including user liability. We have heard a number of community members asking for guidance on this topic. The proposed agreement also seeks to provide guidelines to help users avoid trouble. Community feedback: With this version, and with each major revision afterwards, we want the community to be involved … obviously. So the proposed agreement gives users a 30-day comment period before a major revision goes into effect (with Board approval). There is a 3-day exception for urgent legal and administrative changes. Free Licensing: We felt our present agreement is somewhat confusing on the free licensing requirements. The proposed agreement attempts to explain more clearly those requirements for editors. Harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues: The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. We will share that policy with the community in draft form shortly. Dealing with such matters is a process that we hope volunteers will continue to lead on a day-to-day basis. Other Legal Provisions: We do have other legal provisions...we are lawyers after all. Most notably, the proposed agreement incorporates legal sections that are commonly used to help safeguard a site like ours, such as disclaimers and limitations on liability. Thank you in advance for your review and comments. Your input will be invaluable. Geoff

Some folks have asked me to explain in more detail, beyond my email, why we need a user agreement, which, of course, I’m happy to do. To start, I want to underscore a couple of points. First, a user agreement should serve as a guide to new editors and readers (as well as the rest of the Community). It should help newbies understand the basic rules of the game and their responsibilities. It is only fair notice, and it reflects our commitment to transparency. When people understand the rules, when they understand their responsibilities, the experience is likely to be a better one for the reader and user as well as the Community. To be sure, not everyone reads the user agreement, but many do. And, when there are questions, it is always there as a reference to guide and advise.

Second, a lot of this falls into the category of “an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.” There is a reason that every other website of our size has a (much more extensive and shockingly one-sided) terms of use: a little bit of legal language can go a long way in keeping an organization out of court. Indeed, we see more extensive terms of use than our present one on websites that share values of openness and community. See, as examples, the Mozilla Terms of Use (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Terms%20of%20Service) and Creative Commons Terms of Use (https://creativecommons.org/terms) .

These terms of use are useful in preventing the frivolous lawsuits that could otherwise hit hard an organization’s budget; an issue that is especially relevant for a non-profit. Just because a lawsuit lacks basis doesn’t mean we don’t still have to hire a lawyer to go to court to defend us, and, if there’s one thing lawyers are known for, it’s that their costs add up fast.

Wikipedia and our other sites are really big now. This is something to rejoice and be proud of – you, as well as everyone who has contributed over the years, have done a great job building this amazing site while promoting an incredible mission! But being large means you have to protect yourself, your infrastructure, and your Community.

That said, let me take a stab at explaining some of the more specific reasons for the proposed terms of use:

1. A good description of our services (Sec. 1) reinforces to third parties, potential litigants, and courts what is a known and important fact about our operation: Wikimedia is a hosting site, entitled to legal immunity under U.S. and some foreign law. We constantly receive threats of lawsuits, but, after we explain our hosting site immunity, most of those threats go away. If we do go to litigation, and we sometimes do, courts are receptive to our hosting status position. The proposed language in the user agreement is not essential, but it can help persuade a foreign court that we are hosting content where the local law is unclear. In short, it reduces costs: We operate on a small budget, and every time we can persuade a lawyer not to sue us or a court to support us, that means more money to support the Community mission.
2. The user agreement helps new users see comprehensively the most important policies governing our site, like the Privacy Policy (Sec. 2), Board resolutions (Sec. 11), and Community policies (Sec. 11). It becomes more difficult for a user to claim ignorance about these essential guidelines when they are referenced in a user agreement.
3. A user agreement provides helpful notice to new users on issues that govern their very first edit. For example, a new user should know upfront that he or she is responsible for his or her edits (Sec. 1b). That is only fair. A new user should understand what basic behavior is not acceptable on the site (something that we are working to define right now through this discussion process)(Sec. 4). That helps both the user and the Community.
4. The prohibitions also are intended to assist the Community when it enforces its rules against unacceptable conduct (Sec. 4, 10). Indeed, for some of these prohibitions, such as long term abuse, senior members of the Community requested that we address this behavior as aggressively as possible; this user agreement is in partial response to that. Unacceptable conduct that is expressly called out in the user agreement provides backup for all the projects to enforce against violating users. And, if we were challenged in court, clearer rules in the user agreement would render these community actions even easier to defend.
5. The user agreement seeks to put in one place the essential parts of other legal or important documents on our site, many of which would be particularly hard to locate for newer or less familiar editors and readers. For example, the user agreement addresses potentially offensive material (Sec. 3a), non-professional advice (Sec. 3b), use of our trademarks (Sec. 6), and third party websites and resources (Sec. 9). See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking ; http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy .
6. With respect to technical situations like malware attacks on the site, we need to be ready to litigate if necessary. We facilitate that legal option by underscoring our boundaries in the user agreement for purposes of common law trespass and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Sec. 4). We want to be in the best position to protect our infrastructure and pursue all legal avenues, and the user agreement advances those goals.
7. A user agreement should provide helpful information to ensure the experience is a positive one. We do that in the new proposed agreement. See Sec. 5 (telling users to keep their password secure); Sec. 8 (providing advice on how to handle DMCA takedown notices).
8. Like the present user agreement, we need to provide clear guidance on the licensing requirements (Sec. 7). With a new reiteration, we hope we employ even easier-to-understand language (though we could probably do better, and as with everything else, welcome your suggestions to improve it).
9. A user agreement allows us to gather in one place required legal notices and processes which help limit our legal liability, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)(Sec. 8).
10. The crown jewels for the Community and the Foundation are the Wikimedia trademarks. We need to be vigilant in this area, and the agreement puts all users on further notice that the trademarks may be used for only limited purposes that advance our mission (Sec. 6). Part of our ongoing legal responsibility as an organization is to safeguard our marks, and it is surprisingly easy for these trademarks to be lost due to obscure legal pitfalls. Our trademarks are there to protect users, the community, and the general populace by providing a clear method of identifying our services and goods so people are not misled by fraudulent impostors. The proposed user agreement furthers that aim.
11. There are good reasons to limit WMF liability in other ways (Sec. 13-16). WMF works off a limited budget consisting of valued donor money. $30 million sounds like a lot, but it really isn't for a website our size. As noted above, any wording that can persuade a lawyer not to file a lawsuit, saves donors' money - money that can be reinvested to assist the Community in forwarding the Wikimedia movement. I don't want to waste it on outside lawyers.

The above is only a partial list on the reasons for the proposed terms of use, but I hope you find it useful. As I have said below, in the end, this is intended to be a Community document, reflecting its values while reasonably protecting the Foundation. I encourage your feedback and suggestions and thank everyone who has participated so far.

Geoffbrigham 01:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Preserved from automated archival. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

The terms of use are now before the WMF Board of Trustees for consideration

After an internal review, WMF staff will be proposing no additional changes or amendments to the proposed terms of use. I therefore recommended that the Board replace the present terms of use with the proposed terms of use. That recommendation was forwarded to the Board today for consideration. Many thanks again for everyone's hard work on this project. Geoffbrigham 23:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Communication sent to Board
Background For more than 140 days, the Wikimedia community reviewed, drafted, and redrafted the terms of use with more than 200 edits modifying the original proposal. While accumulating 19,000 page views, community members offered comments, edits, and rewrites. Complete or partial translations appeared in 20+ languages. With over 4500 lines of text and as many words as Steinbeck’s classic “The Grapes of Wrath,” discussion helped ensure a thoughtful process. These proposed terms of use are intended to replace our present version. It is not commonly known that our present terms are nothing more than a licensing agreement, not traditional terms of use. The new proposed terms of use represent a step forward and a more comprehensive view of the Wikimedia projects. Among other things, they provide for: Better understanding: The proposed agreement includes an easy-to-read template summary to help facilitate understanding of the terms. Stronger security: The proposed agreement prohibits a number of actions – like installing malware – that could compromise our systems. We thought we should be clear as to what is unacceptable in this area, though most of these restrictions will not be surprising or represent any real change in practice. Clearer roles: We have heard a number of community members asking for guidance, so we set out clearly the roles and responsibilities of the community, including editors and contributors. The proposed agreement also seeks to provide guidelines to help users avoid trouble. More community feedback: With this version, and with each major revision afterwards, we want the community to be involved. So the proposed agreement gives users at least a 30-day comment period before a major revision goes into effect (with Board approval). There is a 3-day exception for urgent legal and administrative changes. Clearer free licensing: We feel our present agreement is somewhat confusing on the free licensing requirements. The proposed agreement attempts to explain more clearly those requirements for editors (without changing existing practices). More tools against harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues: The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. While the global ban is authorized by the terms of use, it will be implemented by community policy. Better legal protection: The proposed agreement incorporates legal sections that are commonly used to help safeguard a site like ours, such as better explanation of our hosting status as well as disclaimers and limitations on liability for the Foundation. More detailed reasons why we are proposing updated terms of use are set out here. Suffice it to say, we are consistent with other like-minded organizations, which have incorporated similar agreements, including Internet Archives, Creative Commons, Mozilla Firefox, Open Source Initiative,Project Gutenberg, Linux Foundation, Stack Exchange, WikiSpaces, and Word Press.com. Specifically, in its more than 320 printed pages of discussions, the community raised, discussed, and resolved more than 120 issues. There were many substantive and editorial changes that greatly improved the document. Much language was deleted or tightened at community request. As part of this process, the community addressed a number of interesting topics, such as: Whether we should emphasize that the community (not WMF) is primarily responsible for enforcing policy: We agreed to underscore this primary responsibility of the community to avoid any confusion. Whether we should include an indemnification clause to the benefit of WMF: We chose to delete it in light of community concerns. Whether we should adopt a “human-readable” version to facilitate understanding: We agreed to incorporate such a summary. Whether we should expressly prohibit linking to certain sites: We chose not to, deleting earlier language unacceptable to the community. Whether we should require civility and politeness: With varying views, we decided to “encourage” it. Whether the WMF should provide resources to support forks: We chose not to address this now, though we agreed to highlight the discussion to the Board for its consideration. *Please find the most relevant discussions on forking here and here. Whether we should emphasize the independent roles of chapters: We chose to do so. Whether we should increase the liability limitation for WMF from $100 to $1000: We answered affirmatively. Whether we should provide for additional comment time after the posting of translations in three key languages: We said “yes” to address international community concerns. Needless to say, this project would have been impossible without the hard work and expertise of our community. Through their tireless effort, the community mentored important and deep discussions on critical subjects for Wikimedia. The process forced us to think about issues that we had never addressed directly. In short, the value of collaboration quickly became obvious. Its magic created a document many times better than the original. Many thanks to Philippe, Maggie, Steven, Michelle, Kelly, Matt, and others at WMF for their hard work on this project. Proposed Resolution As General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation, I hereby propose the following resolution for approval by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation: Resolved, that, upon recommendation of the General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation and upon review and consideration of the extensive community discussions on the subject, the Board of Trustees hereby approves to substitute the current terms of use, which is presently found here, with the proposed terms of use, which is presently found here. If the Board would find it useful, I will be happy to discuss the proposed terms of use in detail during its February meetings. I do request approval of the new proposed terms of use at those meetings if the schedule of the Board so allows. Regards, Geoff Geoffrey Brigham General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation

Preserved from automated archival. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC).