Talk:Terms of use

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 365 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 365 days. For the archive overview, see Talk:Terms of use/Archives.

Extended content
This section contain discussion regarding the Terms of Use page prior to the start of the 2023 update process. Quotations On the Dutch wiki, we are currently discussing the use of quotations from non-free content. Our questions for WMF are: Do the Terms of Use (implicitly) prohibit the use of quotations from (non-free) content, not published under a licence compatible with Wikipedia? If so, why is this done? How can some wiki's use such quotations e.g. as "fair use" (Wikipedia:Quotations, Wikipedia:Zitate, Wikipédia:Citation), although this seems to contradict art 7.c of the terms? Wickey (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Broken link to 2009 version At the very end of the current terms, there's a link to the archived 2009 version. Said link is broken as it's going to the wrong site. (it links to wikimediafoundation.org when it should link to foundation.wikimedia.org) 2600:4040:500D:5900:5584:5BB6:616C:A7E3 19:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2022 I think we should change §7.4 to allow Wikisource to import GFDL books. This is because Wikisource should be able to import certain book-sized works (e.g. Free as in Freedom (2010)) that are licensed under GFDL. Matr1x-101 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Please reach out to legalwikimediaorg. The Terms of use can only be changed by WMF, not by the community. --Johannnes89 (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

2023 Terms of Use update

The Wikimedia Foundation Legal department is hosting a feedback cycle about updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use (ToU) from February 21 to April 24, 2023. Feedback regarding the proposed update are welcome in any language below this message.

On behalf of the Legal Department,
RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Minor copyedits

While the ToU are already being updated, there are a two minor changes I believe should made:

• Section 7c says you must credit the author(s) in a reasonable fashion if you import text under a CC BY-SA license that requires attribution. All CC BY-SA licenses require attribution, but some licenses compatible with CC BY-SA do not require attribution. Is this what this clause is referring to? In any case, I think its meaning should be clarified. There is also the question of whether we wish to require attribution regardless of the legal requirement to do so, but that is a more substantive change.
• Section 16 says in at least three languages. Should this be in at least three (3) languages?

Thank you for all the hard work you are putting into this process! Best, HouseBlaster (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

---

The line that would result in:

• Engaging in ,threats, stalking, spamming, vandalism or harassment as described in the UCoC;

Should probably be:

• Engaging in threats, stalking, spamming, vandalism, or harassment as described in the UCoC;

— xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Can confirm that the proposed change is in line with the original copy. Fixed. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

---

• What is a "revert disable"? I think this was trying to say "revert, disable"? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Can confirm that the proposed change is in line with the original copy. Fixed. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

---

• Section 4: to binding “Med-Arb” (a “Marketing Company Mediation”). As described should be to binding “Med-Arb” (a “Marketing Company Mediation”), as described. HouseBlaster (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

---

• Section 10: probably the most minor change of all, Alternatively - if in doubt - you should read Alternatively – if in doubt – you (the hyphens should be en dashes. My former English teacher would be very happy that I brought this up!). HouseBlaster (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Insertion of "encyclopedic" in Section 1 a)

Changes in Section 1 a):

Because the Wikimedia Projects are collaboratively edited, the vast majority all of the encyclopedic content that we host is provided by users like yourself, and we do not take an editorial role.

Unless you intend to take an editorial role on Commons, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiqoute ..., I'd like to suggest reconsidering the addition of "encyclopedic" here. El Grafo (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Third Party Resources Policy

Section 4 adds a new reference to the Third Party Resources Policy. Is this a new policy or something existing that I've never noticed? In general the meaning of the term uploading third-party technical resources is not clear to me. Taavi (talk!) 14:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Came here for this, only thing I came up with on search was an incomplete phab task, phab:T296847. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Samuel (WMF): can perhaps provide more on this? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Taavi and Bawolff:. The Third Party Resources policy is a work in progress led by the Foundation’s Security team. It is aimed at formalizing the use of third-party resources by gadgets and user scripts, so as to ensure better privacy and security for users. Here, “third party resources” should be viewed as ​​computer resources which are located outside Wikimedia production websites. They may include but are not limited to: executable scripts, style sheets, image and font files, JSON/JSONP data.

While this is still ongoing work, the Third Party Resources policy is expected to complement the ToU by covering specific aspects such as the risks related to user scripts and gadgets loading third-party resources, best practices for script developers and gadget makers, administrative and technical enforcement.

So far, the work on the Third Party Resources policy has mainly been discussed in Phabricator (phab:T296847). As per the latest updates, a draft of the policy was crafted and the Security team has been reaching out to a number of community members, including Interface administrators, to gather initial community insights and adjust the draft before engaging in a much larger public discussion on the policy. Once this phase is complete, the policy draft will be shared publicly for discussion.

For the time being, please feel free to subscribe to the Phabricator ticket (phab:T296847) for updates on this ongoing work. -- Samuel (WMF) (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Further feedback

• Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_department/2023_ToU_updates/Proposed_update#Summary:
  • There should be a link to the UCOC, just mentioning it is not enough here.
  • "Contact the Wikimedia Foundation: You can reach us at our contact page"

  Yes, and where is your contact page? Needs also a link.

  Can confirm that the original copy included a link to the contact page, but did not link to the UCoC. Fixed. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_department/2023_ToU_updates/Proposed_update#Our_Terms_of_Use:
  • "The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (“we” or “us”), is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable organization, headquartered in San Francisco, California"

  So and what is that 501 thingy? Deserves some explananation, maybe just link.

• Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_department/2023_ToU_updates/Proposed_update#Overview:
  • "Generally we do not contribute, monitor, or delete content (with the rare exceptions, such as [...] when faced with urgent threats of serious harm)...."

  So when it's only serious but no urgent, WMF does not intervene? Also, the obvious interpretation of the text is "serious harm to our content", but I guess it (also? especially?) refers to serious harm of contributors

  • The UCOC is again mentioned but not linked.
• Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_department/2023_ToU_updates/Proposed_update#1._Our_Services
  • " technological infrastructure that enables users to programmatically interact with and re-use content on Wikimedia Projects (“APIs”)" Why not give the full name: Application Programming Interface?
• Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_department/2023_ToU_updates/Proposed_update#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities
  • Again, UCOC needs a link.
• Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_department/2023_ToU_updates/Proposed_update#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities
  • Time for boring, positive feedback: I like the changes concerning paid editing.
• Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_department/2023_ToU_updates/Proposed_update#10._Management_of_Websites
  • "If you believe we have not satisfactorily acted on a problematic content report, or if you have been subjected to a Foundation moderation action that you wish to challenge, see [here]."

  I see nothing special "there". Still a placeholder? Or do I not believe strong enough?

Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 15:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Der-Wir-Ing - regarding missing links, these have often been left out to make wiki-syntax with regards to translations less complex. They will be included in final versions. DBarthel (WMF) (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we will update the text with several links when we have it. Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Marketing Company Mediations in section 4

A minor copy editing note: the last sentence in this section is an incomplete sentence. I suggest it be made an explanatory clause of the previous sentence, by changing ". As described in section 14 of these Terms of Use." to ", as described in section 14 of these Terms of Use." isaacl (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This one is copied verbatim from the original copy that we received for upload to Meta, but your suggestion is well noted. Thanks! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Paid editing

Section 4 says:

In addition, if you make a public posting on a third-party service advertising editing services on Wikipedia in exchange for pay, you must disclose what Wikipedia accounts you will use for this service in the public posting on the third-party service.

Should this be less specific? Something like:

In addition, if you make a public posting on a third-party service advertising editing services on Wikipedia in exchange for pay compensation of any kind, you must disclose what all Wikipedia account(s) you will use for this service in the public posting on the third-party service.

It might also be a good idea to prohibit logged-out paid editing, as it makes disclosure a nightmare. Thanks! HouseBlaster (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree, especially for logged-out paid editing, where adequate disclosure is for all practical purposes impossible. The addition of "all" for "what" also makes a meaningful difference. "compensation of any kind" replacing "pay" makes sense in writing Wikipedia policies, but I'm not sure if in a lawyerly document like this it needs to be said. Smallbones (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Paid editing - third-party service advertising editing services

<<if you make a public posting on a third-party service advertising editing services on Wikipedia in exchange for pay, you must disclose what Wikipedia accounts you will use for this service in the public posting on the third-party service.>> Is this including LinkedIn? And company websites? Or only freelancer, fiverr and similar? Thanks Cartago90 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• IMHO if somebody is advertising Wikipedia services on LinkedIn or a company website it still needs to be disclosed. I'd go so far as saying it needs to be disclosed on a page that's readable to the public (or is public part of "disclosed"). Smallbones (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is my reading, too. It says you must disclose "in the public posting on the third-party service" (emphasis mine). HouseBlaster (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

ملاحظات أولية

مرحبًا، قرأت هذا البند "هذا يعني أننا عادة لا تراقب أو نحرر محتوى مواقع المشاريع، ونحن لا نتحمل أي مسؤولية عن هذا المحتوى." كلمة عادة تعني أنه توجد حالات يُراقب فيها المحتوى وأجده مناقضًا لهذا البند "وهو يناقض هذه "انت مسؤول قانونا عن تعديلاتك ومساهماتك في مشاريع ويكيميديا " فكيف أكون حرا ومسؤولا ومراقبا في آن واحد؟ تحياتي Nehaoua (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Paid editing - an odd question

Please let me know if there is a better place to ask this question. I'm sure we all know that almost nobody reads ToUs or Terms of Service, e.g. a majority of people reading this have been on Google today, but when was the last time you read their Terms of Service? I say it's been at least 15 years for me. With paid editing at issue here, I don't think just having the proper legal words in the proper format is good enough though. Every company in the world who might want to advertise here should have some idea that paid editing is prohibited here, even before they read the ToU. That's a lot of people who have to read it before it's effective in keeping out undeclared paid editors. In a legal sense, I'd guess, that it would be more effective as well, if when you get in front of the mediator and the paid editing company says "Sorry, I just never knew ..." that the mediator thinks "Oh really?" So I think to be really effective the WMF needs to thoroughly publish this in many places, in many cases. I'd feel very much more enthusiastic in supporting this if somebody near the top gave us an idea of how they are going to publicize this. Not just the wording of the ToU, but the ideas behind it. The WMF can do this better than anybody else in the movement. Smallbones (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Chilling Effects website

https://www.chillingeffects.org/ just redirects to https://lumendatabase.org/... So while there's an addition of "Lumen Database" text, I suspect that should be the link target, not Chilling Effects, and update to avoid the redirect...

So <ins>Lumen Database</ins> [https://www.chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects] website should become <ins>[https://lumendatabase.org/ Lumen Database]</ins><s>[https://www.chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects]</s> website. Potentially even dropping the website at the end too.

Reedy (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me get back to you on this -- the copy for upload that we received did not strike the word "Chilling Effects" through. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Replying here. Lumen and Chilling Effects are the same organization, they just changed their name a few years ago. We had originally left it since they kept the old URL, but I think we can update to have it say Lumen and use their main link instead of the chilling effects link. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, updated. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Day 1 thank you

Hi everyone, this is Jacob from the Foundation legal department. I want to say thank you for the initial comments! There were some good catches on the copy-editing, and helpful requests for adding and fixing links, which we'll review (including any more as they come in) and aim to produce an updated draft. I think we'll likely have that before the first office hour in March. I also reached out to the security team regarding the third party resources policy. Thank you Taavi and xaosflux. It looks like that is the correct phabricator task, but their policy isn't ready yet. We are likely going to keep this space in the ToU as a placeholder for the future when there will be a policy for how to use third-party resources without creating a technical risk for other users. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Password Security

I don't think we should get into specifics of password policies, good practices like using password managers etc (which are technical) here, but is it worth going a little beyond the current wording of "You are responsible for safeguarding your own password and should never disclose it to any third party." to include some wording about changing it if you believe it's been shared/compromised. Reedy (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Though, what is a "security credential"? Does that need defining or examples providing? Reedy (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Responsibility for laws where subjects written about are located?

The Overview section currently states, "you are legally responsible for all of your contributions, edits, and re-use of Wikimedia content under the laws of the United States of America and other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content)." The proposal changes this to, "you are legally responsible for all of your contributions, edits, and re-use of Wikimedia content under the laws of the United States of America and other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you or the subject you’re writing about are located)." [Emphasis added.] This is a very substantial and disturbing change. Will editors writing about the Russian military be bound to follow the law of Russia, for example? Is the Foundation requiring editors to learn and follow the libel laws of foreign countries of people and corporations? And if they run afoul of those laws, does this proposed revision make editors liable for the consequences? The "About" page's Overview section says, "These changes are open to general feedback and can be removed or reworded if there are concerns." Yes, please! 2601:642:4C02:64B:CE6C:2AA:1BDB:EF2 05:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

i also share this concern. Bawolff (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Third party resources

The new section about "Unauthorized Uploading of Third-Party Technical Resources" is very unclear to me. Like, i am a developer-definitely more technical than most, and i have no idea what that is trying to get at. Are we trying to ban people from reusing open source js libraries in gadgets? Installing rootkits on the servers? Something else? Bawolff (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Bawolff:, please see the comment I made in Taavi's section a bit earlier: Special:Diff/24608405. Thank you. -- Samuel (WMF) (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sui generis database rights

One of the key changes in the proposed Terms of Use is the new sentence about contributors waiving their "Sui Generis Database Rights". This is one of the key issues that delayed the move from 3.0 to 4.0 for so long (see answer by Jimmy Wales in a 2021 conversation with the WMF Board of Trustees).

The background here is that Wikidata has a CC-0 (public domain) licence that does not require re-users to attribute the content to Wikidata, whereas re-users of Wikipedia do have to attribute content to Wikipedia. Because of this licence incompatibility, it was originally thought that it would be a licence infringement for Wikidata to harvest data from Wikipedia, as has been happening for the past ten years. (In fact, because of the licence incompatibility, the community were told in 2012 that no such harvesting would ever take place.) The licence incompatibility would have been even more of an issue under the 4.0 licence, which explicitly protects database rights. As the Creative Commons update for Version 4.0 said:

In particular, the fact that sui generis database rights are not explicitly covered by the 3.0 unported licenses has led to confusion in jurisdictions that recognize those rights. Version 4.0 removes any doubt, pulling applicable sui generis rights squarely within the scope of the license unless explicitly excluded by the licensor. It also allows database providers to use the CC licenses to explicitly license those rights.

Per the video linked above, the decision to go ahead with the move from 3.0 to 4.0 now is in part due to the UN's decision to adopt 4.0. Andreas JN466 11:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)