Talk:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Changed translation markup[edit]

Hi JeanFred (ccing Jalexander), thanks for improving the translation markup. It seems though that these changes cause problems when updating the existing translations, e.g. this minor typo fix generated major disruption to the German version. Can you or someone else help fixing this?

Good idea adding the "applicable-law" anchor though (there is also a dedicated template btw, {{anchor}}). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, the German translation was messed up. Fixed it today. So at least there is a complete and workable raw translation now. Of course, there is still work to be done. --Pyrometer (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topic suggestion[edit]

There should really be a section indicating why the Board felt it to be necessary to switch from the traditional "focus on the edit" philosophy to the new "focus on the editor" philosophy, given that this is such a substantial philosophical change. 20:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In trouble translating ... "pre-existing policy"...[edit]

The FAQ states:

"To adopt a pre-existing policy as an alternative disclosure policy, a project community must gain consensus specifically to replace the paid editing disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use with the policy of the project."

I'm not sure if I get the idea. Does it mean to say the following?

To adopt a draft as an alternative disclosure policy, a project community must gain consensus to replace the provisions of section "Paid contributions without disclosure" in the Terms of Use with the provisions of that draft.

--de:user Pyrometer de:user talk Pyrometer

Thanks for asking. In contradiction of Writing clearly, the paragraph in question (as well as the preceding one) was missing docs; I've removed it for now till it's made translatable. --Nemo 13:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Pyrometer,
a pre-existing policy means a local policy that existed on that project before the Terms of Use were amended on June 16, 2014 (as opposed to an alternative disclosure policy whose draft was published after the amendment, such as the one on Commons). I will add this remark as translation documentation. A consensus formed before the amendment would obviously refer to a different situation where the option of relying on a formulation approved by the Board for the Terms of Use was not available.
For the German translation (thanks!), a good translation of "pre-existing" might be "bereits vorher existierende", see e.g. this online dictionary.
Mind you, the alternative meaning you proposed above ("Does it mean to say the following?") appears to be consistent with the rest of the FAQ too, and I understand why a reader might be wondering about the necessity for this additional sentence about pre-existing policies - e.g. the word adjust in the existing FAQ should already have indicated that this clause does not mean that pre-existing policies override the new Terms of Use. Nevertheless, it was apparently necessary to clarify this point because Nemo had been misunderstanding it [1].
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So simple... :-) The idea of an override didn't occur to me. Now I get the idea and it makes sense: Any existing local provisions are (for the time being) overridden by the amendment and need to be re-established using the same procedures as outlined in the preceding text.
Thanks for clarifying.
Regards --Pyrometer (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

grammar, specificity[edit]

This sentence needs fixing:

In United States, for example, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the nationwide authority to regulate unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.[1]

It's grammatically incorrect and wishy-washy. I propose this:

In the United States, for example, "Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful."[2] The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the nationwide authority to regulate this.[3]

P.S. "suggest that you might be" is in the following sentence. Those weasel words should be replaced.

--Elvey (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed.--Elvey (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi User:Tbayer (WMF). I see you created this page. Where did you source the answers from and are they up-to-date? I am trying to decide where I should link institutions to to find out more about COI as there are so many COI pages that offer different interpretations- making things pretty difficult to orient new editors! Thanks, OR drohowa (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello OR drohowa,
I actually didn't create this page (see the revision history), only the talk page ;) But I think I can answer your questions: This FAQ has been created by the Foundation's Legal team (who also wrote the Terms of Use section that it refers to), and as far as I know, it is up to date. It should indeed be a good place to link institutions to - in fact it's already linked from the Terms of Use themselves.
(BTW, pings don't seem to work here, at least I didn't receive one from your question - I only happened to see it while checking my watchlist. Trying nevertheless to ping Luis and Stephen in case they have anything to add regarding your question.)
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi User:Tbayer (WMF), User:LuisV (WMF), User:Slaporte (WMF). So the reason I asked if this was up-to-date is that I am getting more and more questions about Conflict of Interest editing as I do GLAM outreach as part of w:Wikipedia:GLAM/METRO and also w:Wikipedia:ArtandFeminism Edit-a-thon organizing. This has prompted me to draft a FAQ on COI editing as part of the materials we distribute to organizers. My idea is to synthesize some of the various COI pages and the most authoritative writing on this topic. Here is my draft so far: w:Wikipedia:ArtAndFeminism/FAQ COI. I'm trying to make the FAQ represent widely held views on COI though everyone knows that we still widely disagree about specifics. If you have any thoughts or feedback of the contents of this page, or where it should go on Meta/Wikipedia/project pages, that would be really helpful! OR drohowa (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Email: <dhoward{at}>.Reply[reply]
OR drohowa, you can see the most recent version of the disclosure requirements in Section 4, and this FAQ is up to date. The final answer in the ArtAndFeminimism FAQ looks out of date. Now that the Terms of Use were amended, a user who is paid for edits can provide disclosure on the article's talk page, the edit summary, or their user page as outlined in the FAQ here. Thanks! Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stephen LaPorte: It is not up-to-date 5 years later. At least in the part "Can a local project adopt an alternative disclosure policy for paid editing?" (as "Disclosure of paid contributions to any of the Wikimedia projects is a requirement"). Because there is a number of projects deciding not to require any disclosure. See Commons for instance. Should we update the FAQ? --Neolexx (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where can I register complaints about stealth paid editing?[edit]

I occasionally get emails telling me how wonderful I am and that I need a Wikipedia page and they will be glad to write one for me if I pay them. I would like a place where I can quickly post the email address (and perhaps the email as well) so that others are warned and can perhaps determine what nick is being used for this stealth paid editing. WiseWoman (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean, this guy advertises on LinkedIn that he will write Wikipedia pages for people [2] --WiseWoman (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]