使用條款/有償編輯修正案

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of the page Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment and the translation is 63% complete.

Outdated translations are marked like this.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

Today we are officially closing this comment period under Section 16 of the Terms of Use. We want to thank you for investing your time and best efforts in participating. With over 6.3 million views of the proposal, and almost 5,000 edits in the discussion — with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words in various languages? — this unprecedented exchange has shown how important the handling of paid contributions is to the community. It has also been useful in airing the various, often differing, points of view on this complex issue. We are convinced that the Board will appreciate this comprehensive review of the subject.

Everyone knew that addressing paid contributions effectively would be a tough issue with legitimate competing considerations. There is a loudly voiced desire by many editors and readers for paid editing disclosures, aiming for transparent and unbiased contributions to Wikimedia projects. On the other hand, others are concerned about privacy, enforcement, harassment, evaluation of the “edit, not the editor,” among other things. For us, this consultation was an excellent exchange where we had the opportunity to learn more and understand better the various positions and their implications.

As a next step, the Board will review the community comments. There has been a significant amount of discussion on this proposed amendment, so we expect that, with staff, the Board may take some time to review, discuss among themselves, and reach a decision on the next steps. The !vote is one strong indicator of the importance of addressing this topic, but we have no doubt that the Board will also look at the strength of the arguments and competing considerations, as well as their own experiences, in evaluating how we handle the disclosure of paid editing. In deciding the best approach forward, we anticipate that the Board will examine the need for and language and implications of the original and alternative optional proposals as well as other community proposals.

Thanks again for everyone’s detailed review and thoughtful insight in this discussion. We will keep you informed on the process and the Board’s deliberations.

Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (讨论页) 2014年3月25日 06:07 (UTC)

Contents

使用条款修正案:公开有偿编辑[edit]

简介[edit]

为了更有效地处理未公开的有偿编辑,维基媒体基金会法律部计划请维基媒体基金董事会考虑一项对使用条款的修订建议。「为某一付费客户而参与维基计划,并隐藏此傭佣关系」的情况已引发了一些令社区为难的情况。大多数人认为,有潜在利益冲突的用户应该开诚布公地合作,诚实公开有偿供稿。此外,在不揭露收费或受僱的情况下参与维基项目也可能导致法律上的后果。我们的使用条款已禁止用户进行任何欺骗行为,包括谎报从属关系、冒名顶替以及欺诈。为保证上述条款得以有效实行,本修订案将明确规定维基计划中有偿编辑者公开身份的最低要求。

根据使用条款第十六条的要求,在向董事会提交最后版本以供审查之前,我们就建议的修订接受三十天的社区意见。本修正案已有德文、印度尼西亚它、法文、西班牙文、意大利文、日文及其它一些语言的译本,而我们也鼓励将本修正案翻译成其它语言。

修订案建议[edit]

在使用条款第4节后面增添一个小节,名为“应当避免的某些行为”。

未就收取報酬的编辑進行公告

本使用条款禁止用户参与欺骗性活动,包括「陈述所属机构失实」、「冒名顶替」或「欺诈」。为了保证您遵守这规定,在您於维基媒体的任一项目所收取或將收取之报酬的任何編輯贡献方面,必须公开您的雇用者、客户及所属机构。您必须从下列至少一种以上方式公开有关編輯活動:

  • 在你的用户页上作出声明,
  • 在讨论页面声明与任何有偿编辑有关,或
  • 在编辑摘要中声明是次编辑属有偿性质。

相关法律、社区政策和维基基金会政策和指导方针,例如处理利益冲突的规定,可能会对有偿编辑作进一步限制或要求您更详尽地公开有关信息。欲知详情,可参阅关于公开有偿编辑的背景资料

调度更改[edit]

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.

对改动的详细描述[edit]

当前使用的语句 选项1 选项2 选项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. As part of these obligations, if you receive financial compensation for any contribution about an organization, living person, or commercial product, you must disclose the employer and client who compensated you. As part of these obligations, if you receive financial compensation for any contribution, you must disclose that you were compensated. [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]


Option No. 1: Adds “about an organization, living person, or commercial product” to describe the contributions.[edit]

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.

请在讨论页讨论这个选项。

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

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.

请在讨论页讨论这个选项。

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

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[edit]

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.)

关于公开有偿编辑的常见问题[edit]

为甚么公开信息有必要?[edit]

对维基媒体的项目以维护支付报酬的客户的利益为目的、隐瞒雇佣关系作出的贡献已经对维基媒体社区造成了不利影响。许多人认为与潜在利益冲突有关的使用者应该进行透明公开的合作,并且如实公开其有偿编辑的本质。对维基媒体的项目作出隐瞒雇佣关系的贡献还有可能导致法律后果。我们的用户条款已明确禁止用户参与包括参与包括「谎报从属关系」、「冒名顶替」、「欺诈」在内的欺骗性活动。为确保这些条款的顺利执行,这项规定具体说明了对维基项目进行有偿供稿的最低公开要求。

维基百科中收取報酬贡献的“适用法律”是甚么?未公开的收取報酬贡献是否非法?[edit]

未公开的有偿编辑可能,取决于具体情形,使您、您的公司或您的客户负担法律责任。可能存在适用于您、您的公司或您的客户的具体法,诸如与不公平竞争和简单欺诈相关的法律。因此在公开及执行有偿编辑的过程中,您除了需要遵守用户条款外,还必须遵守相关法律。

我们无法就特定的法律要求给出建议,若有任何问题请向你的律师请教。尽管如此,大体上来说,商业欺诈行为,包括暗箱操作,在很多地方都是被禁止的。例如在美国,美国联邦贸易委员会(FTC)有全国性的权利来规范电子商务中不公平或欺骗性的行为或做法。[1]美国联邦贸易委员会的举例说明如下文所示,那些未在网上披露受联邦贸易委员会管理的企业隶属关系者可能要承担法律责任:

 :“有一个MP3播放器发烧友常去的以讨论新音乐下载技术为题的网上论坛。发烧友在论坛上交换关于新产品、新工具和播放设备的功能的信息。但是这个论坛上的网友并不知道某领先的播放设备生产商的一个雇员在论坛上发了推广这个生产商的产品的文章。对此文章作者的雇佣关系的公开可能会影响她对这个生产商的产品的赞扬的重要性或可信度。因此,此作者应清楚明确地向论坛的成员和读者公开她与生产商的关系”[2]

美国联邦贸易委员会的指南Dot Com Disclosures规定“信息公开必须有效表达,如此则消费者能够发现并理解信息公开所表达的从属关系。”(非正式翻译)关于美国的州法律解释,详见例N.Y. Attorney General’s 2013 investigation。此例有关某公司参与枪手活动. [3]

适用于美国以外地区的法律也可能禁止非公开的有偿编辑。欧盟《不正当商业行为指令》(及其对应的各国版本)禁止“交易商在没有在内容中明确以可以被消费者清楚辨认的图像或声音形式公开的情况下在媒体中使用文字内容以推广产品的行为”以及“虚假宣称交易商的行为目的并非以任何与其交易、生意、产品或专业有关的目的,或刻意造成此种虚假印象,又或者是将自己虚假表现为消费者的行为”[4]欧盟各成员国的国家也可能立法进一步限制非公开的有報酬的编辑,例如以当地竞争法的形式,并且,出于类似的原因,当地国家法院可能认定未在维基百科上以合适的方式公开从属关系为违法行为。

有偿编辑會不會產生其它負面影響?[edit]

有一個極端的可能性,這是支付但故意不披露有關供款,不為公平和有利的方式為公眾利益。當考慮的內容向公眾平衡與傳播內容的價值貢獻的價值,是有利益至少一個隱含的衝突,這將傾向於服務支付貢獻者的更多的私人利益。如果大家都接受這種情況,這是很難想像預期結果不是淨正的維基百科。

正如现实生活中不断出现的例子所表明的那样,非公开的有偿编辑可能反而会给公司、客户和个人的公众关系带来负面影响。新闻界对这类事件非常敏感。不公开有偿编辑的行为可能会失去公众和维基媒体社区的信任。为了维持信誉和避免误会,那些收取报酬的维基媒体编者最好的做法应是保持信息透明和友好合作。

要避免尴尬,请确认本地有偿编辑政策,如中文维基百科上的利益冲突

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

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”)?[edit]

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.

“报酬”指甚么?[edit]

条款中提到的“报酬”指作为编辑的交换所得的金钱、物品或服务。

雇用者、委托人和从属关系的含义是甚么?[edit]

其含义是为你对维基媒体的项目所做的编辑支付报酬,即金钱、物品或服务的个人或组织。

举例而言,如果你代表你的雇用者编辑维基百科上你的雇用者的条目,你必须公开这一事实。同理,如果你受某公关公司所雇来编辑维基百科,你必须同时公开这个公司和这个公司的客户。不过公开的要求很简单。比如如果你是一个收取报酬Wikipedian in residence,你只需要在个人主页上说明职业从属关系就可以了。

有偿编辑是否只在编辑维基百科条目时才要求公开?[edit]

不,在任何维基媒体项目中进行任何形式的有偿贡献时,你必须公开你的雇主、委托人及从属关系。包括编辑讨论页面及维基百科以外的项目。这就是说,在你的用户页作一个简单的公开声明,就能满足上面提到的最低要求。

这条政策是否意味着只要我公开那么有偿贡献就始终被认可?[edit]

不,使用條款所規定的公開只是一個最低要求,旨在幫助每一個維基媒體項目適當地執行自己的政策和指導方針。例如中文維基百科在中立觀點方針中要求所有編輯都是公正,平等及(盡可能)沒有任何偏見,而貢獻者即使公開了有償編輯亦必須遵守以上的要求。

这是否意味着维基媒体项目必须改变他们的政策?[edit]

不,除非他们的政策与最低要求相互矛盾,否则不会。维基媒体项目可以自由的改变政策以适应此要求,甚至提出更高的有偿贡献要求。我们鼓励用户尊重其他用户的隐私,即使在怀疑存在有偿贡献情况的时候,也不应骚扰他人。例如由维基百科关于骚扰方面的政策就规定用户不应该公开其他用户的个人信息。

我应当如何在我的用户页面中公开有偿贡献?[edit]

你可以在你的用户页面中注明你雇主的详细信息。例如你为Acme公司工作,并且你在此公司的职务而编辑了关于Acme公司的维基条目,此时你可以在自己的用户页面上说明你代表Acme公司进行了编辑,这符合使用条款的最低要求。另外,你需要遵守社区或者基金会政策以及相关法律。

我该如何在我的编辑摘要中公开有偿贡献?[edit]

在保存你的编辑或贡献之前,你应当在编辑摘要中注明你所代表的雇主、从属关系或者委托人。例如,在保存关于你客户的维基条目(假设为乔丹・史密斯)之前,你应当在编辑摘要中注明:“乔丹・史密斯雇佣了我来更新他的维基条目”或者“我为乔丹・史密斯工作”。

我该如何在讨论页中公开有偿贡献?[edit]

在你「儲存」你的編輯或貢獻之前或之後,你可以在相關的討論頁面上表明你的雇主、工作單位和客戶。例如:如果你是「中部高中」教師,而且有償編輯維基頁面是你受僱工作的一部分,你可以在討論頁上寫下這樣的留言:「中部高中聘用我,於[日期]編輯這篇文章。」或是「請參照我在這個頁面上的編輯,我在為中部高中工作。」

我必须要公开所受资助的细节吗?[edit]

你不必公开编辑条目时所受资助的种类及金额。但必须要注明你的雇用者、委托人或者从属关系。

維基媒體基金會鼓勵或接受有償的宣傳性質編輯?[edit]

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.

参考资料[edit]

  1. 联邦贸易委员会法,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) (按照加利福尼亚州不公平竞争法和虚假广告法,原告关于被告在网站上发表虚假言论的指控不足以构成索赔)
  4. Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament (Annex I, points 11 and 22,非正式翻译)。