Emenda de Termos de uso/Contribuições Pagas

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of the page Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment and the translation is 51% complete.

Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Frysk • ‎Lëtzebuergesch • ‎Malagasy • ‎Nederlands • ‎Tagalog • ‎Tiếng Việt • ‎Türkçe • ‎Zazaki • ‎azərbaycanca • ‎català • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎interlingua • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎norsk bokmål • ‎occitan • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎română • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎ślůnski • ‎Ελληνικά • ‎беларуская • ‎български • ‎русский • ‎татарча/tatarça • ‎українська • ‎עברית • ‎ئۇيغۇرچە • ‎ئۇيغۇرچە / Uyghurche • ‎العربية • ‎فارسی • ‎नेपाली • ‎हिन्दी • ‎বাংলা • ‎ਪੰਜਾਬੀ • ‎தமிழ் • ‎తెలుగు • ‎සිංහල • ‎中文 • ‎中文(台灣)‎ • ‎客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî • ‎文言 • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어
Information

Hoje oficialmente estamos a fechar este período de comentário abaixo Secção 16 das Condições de uso. Queremos dizer obrigado por investir o vosso tempo e os melhores esforços em participar. Com mais de 6.3 milhões de visualizações da proposta, e quase 5,000 edições na discussão — com mais de 2,000 editores e 320,000 palavras em várias línguas? — Este intercâmbio sem precedentes tem mostrado que a gestão de contribuições pagas é importante à comunidade. Também tem sido útil em divulgar os vários, e frequentes diferentes pontos de vista neste assunto complexo. Estamos convencidos que o Conselho apreciará esta revisão compreensiva do tema.

Todo o mundo soube que lidar com as contribuições pagas eficazmente seriam um assunto duro com considerações legítimas competindo. Há um desejo vocíferado ruidosamente por muitos editores e leitores para revelações de edições pagas, apontando para contribuições transparentes e neutras para projetos Wikimedia. Por outro lado, outros estão preocupados sobre a privacidade, aplicação, intimidação e avaliação do “editar, não o editor,” entre outras coisas. Para nós, esta consulta era um intercâmbio excelente onde tivemos a oportunidade de aprender mais e entender melhor as várias posições e seus envolvimentos.

Como próximo passo, o Conselho revisará os comentários da comunidade. Tem tido uma quantidade significativa de discussão nesta emenda proposta, de modo que esperamos que, com pessoal, o Conselho possa tomar algum tempo para revisar, e falar entre eles, e conseguir uma decisão nos passos próximos. O !voto é um indicador forte da importância de considerar este tema, mas não temos dúvida que o Conselho também vai ver a força dos argumentos e considerações alternativas, bem como as suas experiências próprias, em avaliar como manejamos a revelação de editar por pagamento. A decidir a aproximação adiante mais ajustada, antecipamos que o Conselho examinará a necessidade para linguagem e envolvimentos das propostas originais e alternativas bem como outras propostas da comunidade.

Obrigado outra vez a todos por esta revisão detalhada e visão clara nesta discussão. Vamos manter-vos informados no processo e as deliberações do Conselho.

Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 06:07, 25 março 2014 (UTC)

Contents

Emenda de TDU: Revelação de Contribuição Paga

Introdução

O Departamento Jurídico da Wikimedia Foundation planeja pedir ao Conselho de Curadores da Wikimedia Foundation que considere uma proposta de alteração em nossos Termos de Uso para tratar de novas edições remuneradas não reveladas. Contribuir para os projetos da Wikimedia para servir os interesses de um cliente pagante, enquanto oculta a filiação paga, tem levado a situações que a comunidade considera problemática. Muitos acreditam que os usuários com um potencial conflito de interesses devam envolver-se em uma colaboração transparente, exijindo a divulgação honesta das contribuições pagas. Fazer contribuições para os projetos da Wikimedia sem revelar pagamento ou emprego pode também levar a implicações legais. Nossos Termos de Uso já proíbem se engajar em atividades enganosas, incluindo a declaração falsa de afiliação, falsidade ideológica e fraude. Para garantir a conformidade com essas disposições, esta alteração fornece os requisitos de divulgação mínima específica para contribuições pagas nos projetos Wikimedia.

Conforme requerido pela secção 16 dos Secção 16 dos Termos de uso, estamos a receber comentários da comunidade por 30 dias sobre esta proposta de alteração antes de encaminhar a versão final para o Board of Trustees para a sua revisão. As traduções em alemão, francês, espanhol, italiano e japonês também estão disponíveis; a comunidade é encorajada a traduzir e discutir a proposta de alteração para outras línguas também.

Emenda proposta

Uma subseção adicionada ao final da seção 4 dos Termos de Uso, nomeada "Abster-se de certas atividades.

Contribuições pagas sem divulgação

Estes termos de uso proíbem o engajamento em atividades enganosas, incluindo declaração falsa de afiliação, falsificação de identidade e fraude. Para garantir o cumprimento dessas obrigações, você deve revelar seu empregador, cliente e afiliação referente a qualquer contribuição para qualquer projeto de Wikimedia para o qual você recebe, ou espera receber, compensação. Você deve fazer essa revelação em pelo menos uma das seguintes maneiras:

  • uma declaração em sua página de usuário,
  • uma declaração na página de discussão que acompanha todas as contribuições pagas, ou
  • a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure. For more information, please read our background note on disclosure of paid contributions.

Mudanças Opcionais

In response to community comment in the ongoing consultation, the WMF’s LCA team suggests three potential changes to the proposal. These changes would modify the second sentence of the first paragraph of the amendment, as described below. These options are not mutually exclusive – both of them, either, or neither could be adopted by the Board, depending on your input (and depending on whether they adopt the amendment as a whole).

These potential changes aim to address concerns that have been raised regarding reaction against editors who are allegedly in violation of these requirements, and concern about protecting good-faith contributors (e.g., professors, students, or Wikipedians in Residence) from unintentionally violating the disclosure requirement. We think that either or both of the three options could better focus the amendment on paid advocacy editing, which is a chief concern. However, we also realize they could raise other considerations. Your feedback on these options will help the Board as it considers what language to adopt.

This consultation has been informative, positive, and constructive. We appreciate this, and look forward to your comments on these options.

Descrição das Mudanças

Sentença atual Opção 1 Opção 2 Option 3
To ensure compliance with these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia projects for which you receive compensation. Como parte destas obrigações, se você receber compensação financeira por qualquer contribuição de uma organização, pessoa física, ou produto comercial, você deve divulgar o empregador e o cliente que compensou você. Como parte destas obrigações, se você receber compensação financeira por qualquer contribuição, você deve divulgar que você foi compensado. [Add the following paragraph]

...

A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page [index to be created]


Opção nº 1: Adicionar "de uma organização, pessoa física, ou produto comercial" para descrever as contribuições.

This option narrows what kinds of contributions these requirements would apply to. This focuses on topics that are potential subjects of advertisement and promotion, and excludes other topics of general interest. The intent is to try to exclude potential application to professors, teachers, and Wikipedians in Residence, and other individuals editing on topics of less commercial interest.

Por favor discuta essa opção na Página de Discussão.

Option No. 2: Narrows down the extent of the disclosure, changing it from “your employer, client, and affiliation” to just “that you were compensated.”

This option focuses on simply the fact that compensation was involved, rather than specific information about the editor’s identity. The intent is to allow editors to identify and review paid edits without requiring editors to disclose specific information about their identity. Individual projects may supplement this rule, and create guidelines for additional disclosures, depending on the circumstances.

Por favor discuta essa opção na Página de Discussão.

Option No. 3: Allowing projects to write an alternative disclosure policy

This option focuses on providing local projects with an opportunity to create an alternative disclosure policy for paid contributions, to supersede the default disclosure policy provided in this section of the Terms of Use. The intent is to allow projects to prepare variations on how they expect disclosure, depending on the project and community’s needs, similar to how fair use is handled under the licensing policy. Projects may also supplement this rule and create guidelines for disclosure.

Please discuss this option on the talk page.

Common changes in both options

In addition to the options above, we plan to make three other small changes:

  • Change the words “To ensure compliance with” to “As part of these”, and reorder the sentence.
  • Remove the words “to any Wikimedia projects”
  • Add the word “financial” to describe compensation.

The first two changes aim to improve clarity. The last change (the addition of the word “financial” to describe compensation) narrows what this would apply to, which we think will reduce confusion about the definition of compensation. (People had asked, for example, if this applied to things like students receiving a grade in class, or first-time editors receiving a free lunch during an editathon, neither of which we originally intended to be included.)

Perguntas frequentes (FAQ) sobre divulgação das contribuições pagas

Por que é que esta provisão de divulgação é necessária?

Contributing to the Wikimedia Projects to serve the interests of a paying client while concealing the paid affiliation has led to situations that the Wikimedia community considers problematic. Many believe that users with a potential conflict of interest should engage in transparent collaboration, requiring honest disclosure of paid contributions. Making contributions to the Wikimedia projects without disclosing payment or employment may also lead to legal ramifications. Our Terms of Use already prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. To ensure compliance with these obligations, this provision provides specific minimum disclosure requirements for paid contributions on the Wikimedia projects.

O que é a "lei aplicável" para contribuições pagas na Wikipedia? São contribuições pagas não reveladas potencialmente ilegais?

Depending on the circumstances, undisclosed paid editing could subject you, your business or your clients to legal liability. Specific laws could apply to you, your business, or your clients, such as unfair competition and simple fraud statutes. In addition to the requirements of the Terms of Use, you must comply with those laws in your disclosure and execution of paid contributions.

We cannot advise you about specific legal requirements, and you should employ your own lawyer if you have questions. That said, as general background, deceptive business practices, including concealment of a professional affiliation in specific cases, are prohibited in multiple jurisdictions. In the United States, for example, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the nationwide authority to regulate unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.[1] As the FTC illustrated in the below example, those failing to disclose a regulated company’s affiliation online may be subject to liability:

An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices. Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer’s product. Knowledge of this poster’s employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board.[2]

The FTC’s guide Dot Com Disclosures specifies that “disclosures must be communicated effectively so that consumers are likely to notice and understand them in connection with the representations that the disclosures modify.” For state law implications, see, e.g., N.Y. Attorney General’s 2013 investigation regarding companies engaging in astroturfing.[3]

Laws applicable outside the US may also prohibit non-disclosure of paid contributions. The EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (and the corresponding national versions) ban the practice of “[u]sing editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer” and “[f]alsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer.”[4] National legislation of EU member states may further restrict undisclosed paid contributions, such as through local competition laws, and, for similar reasons, local national courts may find violations in failing to disclose one’s affiliation on Wikipedia in the proper way. Indeed, government authorities may require disclosures of paid editing that are impossible to execute on Wikipedia — such as disclosures by businesses in the article itself to ensure notice to the reader; in such cases, paid editing is not allowed on the Wikimedia sites.

Existem outros potenciais efeitos negativos de contribuições pagas?

There is an extreme likelihood that contributions which are paid for, but intentionally not disclosed as such, do not serve the public interest in a fair and beneficial manner. When considering the value of the contribution of content to the public on balance with the value of dissemination of the content, there is at least an implied conflict of interest that the balance will tend to serve the more private interests of the paid contributor. If it is accepted that this is the case more often than not, it is hard to imagine the expected outcome as a net positive for Wikipedia.

As repeated real life examples illustrate, undisclosed paid editing can have the unintended effect of causing negative public relations issues for companies, clients, and individuals. The press follows such stories closely. Failing to include a disclosure with a paid contribution may lead to a loss of trust with the broader public as well as the Wikimedia community. To maintain goodwill and to avoid misunderstandings, transparency and friendly cooperation is the best policy for those being compensated for Wikimedia contributions.

Para evitar embaraço, certifique-se de seguir as políticas locais sobre contribuições pagas, tais como a de "Conflito de interesse" na Wikipédia em inglês.

How will community enforcement of these obligations work with existing rules about privacy and behavior?

Like the rules around sockpuppeting and sockpuppet investigations, this disclosure requirement is intended to work with existing policies and practices, so that there is a fair balance between identifying paid contributions and protecting good-faith editors. These policies include the cross-project value of civility, which is a pillar of Wikipedia; relevant project policies, like ENWP:OUTING or ESWP:ACOSO; and the Terms of Use, which prohibit stalking and abuse. (In cases of more extreme behaviors, local law may also apply.)

This requirement, like others, should be applied constructively to enable collaboration and improve our projects. Users who violate them should first be warned and informed about these rules, and then only blocked if necessary. In other words: assume good faith and don’t bite the newcomers.

If an editor wishes to avoid the disclosure requirement of this amendment, they should abstain from receiving compensation for their edits.

How will this provision affect teachers, professors, and employees of galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (“GLAM”)?

The intent of these requirements is not to discourage teachers, professors, or those working at galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (“GLAM”) institutions from making contributions in good faith. Disclosure is only required when contributors are compensated by their employer or client specifically for edits and uploads to a Wikimedia project. For example, if a professor at University X is paid directly by University X to write about that university on Wikipedia, the professor needs to disclose that the contribution is compensated. There is a direct quid pro quo exchange: money for edits. If that professor is simply paid a salary for teaching and conducting research, and is only encouraged by her university to contribute to projects about topics of general interest without more specific instruction, that professor does not need to disclose her affiliation with the university.

The same is true with GLAM employees. Disclosure is only necessary where compensation has been promised or received in exchange for a particular contribution. A museum employee who is contributing to projects about topics of his general interest without more specific instruction from the museum need not disclose his affiliation with the museum. At the same time, when required, a simple disclosure that one is a paid Wikipedian in Residence with a particular museum, for example, would be sufficient disclosure for purposes of the proposed amendment.

O que se entende por "compensação"?

Como usado nesta disposição, "compensação" significa uma troca de dinheiro, bens ou serviços. Dito de outra forma, as contribuições pagas são contribuições (ou edições), feitas em troca de dinheiro, bens ou serviços.

O que significa a frase "empregador, cliente e afiliação"?

This means the person or organization that is paying you compensation — money, goods, or services — with respect to any contribution to a Wikimedia project. This could be a business, a charity, an educational institution, a government department or another individual, for example. The disclosure requirement is simple, and requires you to provide this information in one of the three ways described above. If you are editing an article on Wikipedia on behalf of your employer, for example, you must disclose your employer’s details. If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm’s client. If you are a compensated Wikimedian in residence, for example, you must note the details of the GLAM organisation that is paying you.

As divulgações de edições pagas são exigidas apenas quando quando se edita artigos da Wikipédia?

Não, você deve divulgar seu emprego, cliente, e afiliação ao fazer qualquer tipo de contribuição paga em qualquer projeto Wikimedia. Isso inclui edições em páginas de discussão e edições em projetos além da Wikipédia. Dito isto, uma simples divulgação na sua página de usuário satisfaz este requisito mínimo.

Esta disposição significa que contribuições pagas são sempre permitidas desde que faça a divulgação?

No, the disclosures mandated by the Terms of Use reflect a minimum requirement that helps each Wikimedia project to enforce its own policies and guidelines as appropriate. Users must also comply with these additional policies and guidelines as well as any applicable laws. For example, English Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view requires that editing be done fairly, proportionally and (as far as possible) without bias; these requirements must be followed even if the contributor discloses making paid edits.

Significa isto que os projetos Wikimedia devem mudar suas políticas? =

No, unless their policies are inconsistent with these minimum requirements. Wikimedia projects are free to change their policies to reference this requirement or require stricter requirements for paid contributions. We encourage users to be respectful of user privacy and not harass others, even in cases of suspected paid contributions. For example, under the English Wikipedia policy on harassment, users must not publicly share personal information about other users.

Como devo divulgar contribuições pagas na minha página de usuário?

You may explain that you work for a particular client or employer on your user page. If you work for company Acme, and, as part of your job responsibilities, you edit Wikipedia articles about company Acme, you satisfy the minimum requirement of the Terms of Use if you simply say that you edit on behalf of company Acme on your user page. You however need to follow community or Foundation policies, in addition to applicable law.

Como devo divulgar contribuições pagas no meu resumo de edição?

You may represent your employer, affiliation, and client in the edit summary box before you “save” your edit or contribution. For example, before saving your edits to a Wikipedia article about your client, Jordan Smith, you may write this note in the edit summary box: “Jordan Smith has hired me to update their Wikipedia article” or “I work for Jordan Smith.”

Como devo divulgar contribuições pagas numa página de discussão?

Você pode representar o seu empregador, afiliação, e cliente na página de discussão relevante quer antes, ou imediatamente depois, de você "salvar" a sua edição ou contribuição.

Tenho que revelar detalhes da compensação que estou recebendo?

Você não precisa revelar a quantidade ou tipo de compensação que está recebendo por editar; o mínimo requerido é que você revele seu empregador, cliente, e afiliação.

Does the Wikimedia Foundation encourage or accept paid advocacy editing?

WMF feels that paid advocacy editing is a significant problem that threatens the trust of Wikimedia’s readers, as our Executive Director said in her statement on paid advocacy editing. This proposal does not change that position.

However, it is hard to solve the problem of paid advocacy editing without accidentally discouraging good-faith editors, like the various GLAM (gallery, library, archive, and museum) projects. Because of this difficulty, this amendment takes a simple approach: requiring straightforward disclosure of information. This does not mean that paid-advocacy editing is acceptable! Instead, we think that the best way to attack the complex problem while still encouraging new good faith contributions is to combine this pro-transparency requirement with per-project policies that use this new information to make nuanced, difficult case-by-case judgments. We hope that this will lead to the best outcome by combining each Wikimedian’s ability to handle nuance and complexity with the resources of the Foundation (when that is absolutely necessary).

Also the proposed amendment makes clear that “community and Foundation policies, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure.” This provision gives the community discretion to further limit paid editing, including paid advocacy editing, according to the needs of the specific project. That is, the proposed amendment is a minimal requirement, but the community may impose greater restrictions or bans.

Referências

  1. Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2) (2006).
  2. Federal Trade Commission Act; 16 C.F.R. § 255.5, example 8, p.12.
  3. Parino v. Bidrack, Inc., 838 F. Supp. 2d 900, 905 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (plaintiff’s allegations, including defendant’s creation and use of fake reviews on website, were sufficient to bring a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law)
  4. Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament (Annex I, points 11 and 22).