Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-01-08

< Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost | Single

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-01-08. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: A portal to the wonderful world of technology (1,427 bytes · 💬)

News and notes: WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing" (67,523 bytes · 💬)

Comments re "paid editing"

Sentence fragment: He is unconnected with the current--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sturm. Bit of a rush when it was put on-wiki. Tony (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not what Frank said: «[...] had been dismissed from her position»; it's just speculation, or a misleading usage of the verb "dismiss". --Nemo 09:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't even have to join the dots. Tony (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed you don't. Let's stay factual. Even if you decide not to, don't put in Frank's mouth your own words (I think that's been corrected now?). But if we want speculations, her "dodoodoo edit" hints another side. --Nemo 10:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The wording in the lead has been tweaked, but the title remains, as does the word dismiss(ed) in the main text. The WMF has been given two opportunities by email to correct the notion that Striech was dismissed, and did not. End of story. Tony (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I would venture to say that lack of denial does not equal explicit confirmation for the purposes of any reputable journalist or publication. I second Risker's impression, below, that Signpost writing lately has a decidedly yellow-colored tinge. It's entirely possible to cover the facts and use engaging prose without sounding like a tabloid (and, especially in this case, there was more than enough hot-button story there without that); exaggerations, assumptions, and the insertion of the writers' personal opinions into stories may be what readers of the National Enquirer roll up for, but it's not what the main journalistic voice of Wikipedia should be doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fluffernutter, I dare say that you're venturing into hyperbolic territory, as I don't think we're anywhere near the National Enquirer! The wording here is in line with most of the other news outlets reporting this story—it's actually weaker in places. Where are you seeing exaggerations and personal opinions? Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Fluffer, vague, sweeping damnations are very easy to make; but they mean absolutely nothing but bad faith without specific examples of these "exaggerations" and "personal opinions". Tony (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, let's start with the Signpost publishing that Stierch was subject to a "summary dismissal" and that she was "sacked" and "dismissed". As Tony readily agreed above, there is no confirmation for this fact; while it might be reasonable to report that "her relationship with the WMF has been severed" or "she no longer works for the WMF" or even "it appears she may have been dismissed", by saying "summarily dismissed", the Signpost is reporting something that it knows cannot be confirmed and may well be false. Similarly, even if it were verifiable that Stierch had been dismissed, "summarily" exaggerates further by giving the impression that Stierch was dismissed out of process and with no chance to speak for herself. Again, unconfirmed. In fact, not even hinted at, let alone confirmed.

Adding to that, the Signpost article includes personal commentary by its authors about subjects and interviewees. Schulenberg didn't write something, he wrote it "without overt irony", a setup by the Signpost authors to interject their opinion that the forthcoming statement was counterfactual or otherwise disingenuous. He was "unforthcoming" when he didn't answer a question to the author's approval, a clear characterization of what otherwise appears to be an adequate answer. Yes, some columnists write like this, but those columnists are a) columnists and b) writing in an environment of blog posts and "trend" pieces. The Signpost, in contrast, bills itself as a newspaper-style publication, and though it disclaims that its writers' opinions are their own, they write them in the Signpost's voice.

This is all in addition to recent Signpost history involving salacious coverage that was revealed to be using unrelated sexual images, as well as issues of the Signpost going to press with a complete lack of basic editorial control such as copyediting. In short, the impression I have is that no one is manning the store and that Signpost writers are angling for "trendy"-sounding coverage without worrying much about accuracy, either in writing or in meaning.Added after edit conflict: Tony, please do not accuse me of bad faith. I am addressing this issue in the best of faith, from the perspective of someone who is seeing a respected publication go down a very questionable path that could cause it to lose respect, readers, and community trust. Say I'm wrong if you disagree with my points, but to say that my criticism is being done in bad faith is incredibly defensive and insulting of you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased you've got all of that off your chest now. Yes, we did note your blunt edit-summary for last week's News and notes griping about copy-editing. Could I ask you to get the spelling of Schulenburg right, then? Tony (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm saddened that when the Signpost's EiC asked for specifics and was supplied with them, the result is a comment from you that fails to address them, plus your reverting the editor's attempt to remedy one of the issues I pointed out. It would seem that there is very little point in attempting to engage further with writers who are unresponsive to either criticism or corrections. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Tony comes across as very blunt, yes, but "summary" is still no longer used in the article—he didn't revert that. What's left is copyediting because we used forms of "dismiss" twice in close proximity.
Regarding opinionating, I don't see it in the same light. I think that's it's important to set a tone for some statements; while I'm certainly open to the idea that we went too far, I don't see that here. "Without overt irony", in particular, was a reaction to the strange dichotomy between dismissing an employee while saying that the movement is kind and forgiving.
As for recent controversy, I would be floored if we didn't get into controversial situations at times. It comes with the territory! It, and the need for additional copyeditors, doesn't mean that no one's home. This story was one we had to cover because it was the major story of the week. Given the unfortunate circumstances, we did our best to turn the focus away from Sarah by looking at paid editing on other Wikipedias—it certainly wasn't an attempt to look "trendy" by throwing everything together in coat-rack fashion—but it appears that effort was in vain. Thank you for your detailed comments, Fluffernutter. While we didn't take all of them on board, your viewpoint is certainly appreciated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm disappointed to see the Signpost increasingly become a prurient gossip rag. Reading this story saddens me; it reminds me of all those not-reliable sources that we repeatedly remove from BLP articles. One would have hoped that, absent a way to confirm a key point in the story, the Signpost would have simply stated that Stierch and the WMF have parted ways. (Incidentally, I'd hope also that one of the main contributors to the article would be able to consistently spell the name of the subject correctly.) Risker (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi Risker, given the respect I hold for you, your comments are very concerning. However, I must ask where here you think we've become a "gossip rag", as I'm not seeing it. The title is in line with several other news outlets—in fact, the tone is actually weaker than some. We also limited the amount of space devoted to Sarah in favor of examining paid editing on other Wikipedias. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Ed, sorry to say this, but given that there is a huge difference in real-world impact between the possible different ways that Sarah and the WMF parted ways, deciding to publish an article, without reliable sources, that implies the most potentially damaging of those potential impacts is a BLP violation. Saying someone was fired without a reliable source is a BLP violation. They are not permitted on this project. Please remove them, before someone else does. That you're standing behind it is perhaps even more disappointing than that you've made the allegation in the first place. Risker (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Hi Risker, given the other comments, please see my reply below. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Given that Tony has very strong views on people who engage in paid editing (to put things mildly) it's concerning that he was permitted to write this article given that he is not neutral on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    Risker, respect if it's earned, in my view. Sniping about a few typos that were fixed early after publication is all very well if you like to take that line; but if you make serious claims like "gossip rag", please identify which bits are gossip? Nick-D, please enlighten me as to which side you conceive that I have strong allegiance for. I wasn't aware of having a simplistic view on such a complex topic. Tony (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Tony, you have asked and not received an answer to the questions about the terms by which Stierch and the WMF parted ways. That means...you do not know the terms. It does not mean that failing to answer you allows you to insert whatever answer you want to. And I'm sorry, but I'm becoming less and less surprised to see this sort of nonsense from the Signpost. But yes, I do expect you to consistently spell "Stierch" properly. If you're going to actively take steps to negatively affect someone's future employability, the least you can do is spell her name right. Risker (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Tony, from memory Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#Request for Interaction Ban between Tony1 and LauraHale is the public version (which is also relevant to Risker's concerns about the approach here). If I mistook this matter for you having strong views on the topic (or if your views have subsequently evolved) you have my sincere apologies. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Nick-D: So I suppose I need to clarify that the muckraking link you provide was a put-up job that found its proper place in the trash can. Smear as you wish, but it's not proper argument. This is proper argument: I have on several occasions made the point onwiki that the German system looks good; and I've written once or twice that I feel it's impractical to ban paid editing (as opposed to advocacy). I've also expressed the view that paid editing of any sort is unfortunate. To me, it's too complex and multilayered an issue to take a monolithic view on. I can fish out the diffs if you really want to waste time, but in this context my personal opinions are not relevant. You might recall that my coverage in the Signpost has included a variety of paid-editing/advocacy topics with a range of implications. Suffice it to say that I can't work out whether I'm being accused of being pro- or anti-paid editing/advocacy in your posts. Or are you just sniping as you've done on previous News and notes talk pages? Tony (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call this a fair treatment of the situation. Frank's email can easily be interpreted in many ways; it is vague. We just don't know if Sarah was fired or if she resigned. To say one way or the other puts words in people's mouths and violates BLP-Guerillero | My Talk 00:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Risker, et al: reliable sources in this case include emails we receive from WMF management. In relation to your specific assertion, Frank Schulenburg wrote to us at 23:22 UTC on 9 January, inter alia: "Again, we aren't going to give specifics about a personnel matter. In general, decisions about dismissals are made by an employee's manager, in consultation with HR and other parts of the staff." Thank you for your concern, and I hope this dispels perceptions that the coverage was based on personal opinion and assumption. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Can you or can you not say certainly that Sarah was dismissed by the Foundation? You are being very cagey on this point. AGK [•] 00:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
          • The WMF's Senior Director of Programs described it as a "dismissal" in an email to us, quoted above. How is that cagey? Kind regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
            • Ed, with much respect, the words "In general" jump out at me from that quote, as it implies that it is not about this specific matter but rather the WMF's standard practice for handling dismissals (though it may be clearer the context of whatever question was put to Frank Schulenburg). Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) The email you quote describes the internal process for dismissal, presumably because the Signpost asked about "dismissal" in the original message. If the WMF did not announce and refused to confirm Sarah was dismissed, why have you assumed she was? Why have you plastered this assumption all over the internet? AGK [•] 00:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
None of them are Wikipedia, where we have a very strong biography of living persons policy that applies to every page. Please make the necessary corrections. Ed and Tony, I'm quite serious about this. Absent clearcut evidence that any of the terms you have used to describe the severence of the employee/employer relationship are correct, you need to remove them, as they can have vastly negative effects on the living persons involved here. Risker (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The e-mail you used as a source does not contain the words dismissal or sack. Can you explain why you have decided to use these specific words when there is no evidence provided in your own sourcing ? Do you have a source you can quote (even if you need to ask for permission from the author) that says "Sarah Stierch was dismissed" (or words to that exact effect, so that no interpretation is needed on the part of the reader to discern the meaning of the e-mail message). Yes or No. Can you also tell us the question you asked Frank that resulted in his reply stating "Again, we aren't going to give specifics about a personnel matter. In general, decisions about dismissals are made by an employee's manager, in consultation with HR and other parts of the staff." as it is necessary to know the context of that reply in order to determine its truthful meaning. Nick (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nick-D, Nick: the original question asked "(iv) Who made the decision to dismiss? Was Jimmy Wales involved?". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
So, the answer to your question was "Again, we aren't going to give specifics about a personnel matter." Frank then went on to explain the general practice of how the WMF may carry out an employee dismissal, likely to clarify that Jimmy Wales does not have a role in any such discussions. In other words, you do not know whether she was dismissed, sacked, summarily dismissed or any other variation. You've decided to write what you want. That is a BLP violation, flat out. BLP *does* apply to every page on the project, including the Signpost. Please make the necessary changes. Risker (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Ed, has anybody, anywhere, via any medium, explicitly stated "Sarah was dismissed" ? I'm far from convinced your interpretation of Frank's words is accurate or what he intended. Nick (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
First, the mailing-list email you refer to used standard wording for announcing a dismissal. If Sarah had resigned, the wording would have been quite different—specifically, it would have stated that she had resigned, simply to absolve the organization from the need to defend itself for dismissing an employee. If you can wash your hands of the need to justify an employee departure by stating it was a resignation (without pressure), you're rather keen to do that. In fact, it would have been a serious professional error not to announce it as a resignation if a resignation it was: that much is Industrial Relations 101.
Second, three of our four questions to Frank Schulenburg contained the word dismiss as a way of testing what was then an assumption of dismissal as opposed to resignation. Not once did he correct this assumption. As well as using the word dismissal himself, as quoted above, here's another example:
Question: Was the boundary between paid editing and paid advocacy a factor in the decision to dismiss? Response: This question is difficult to answer without further discussing the specifics of this particular matter, which we decline to do. ... [the rest is quoted and paraphrased in the article].
Third, Jay Walsh viewed the questions to and answers by Schulenburg in a forwarded email from us. Our subsequent exchange with him is quoted and paraphrased in full in the article, and provides overall both clear evidence that the dismissal was "given", and no assertion that she resigned of her own accord; again, such an assertion would have been very much in the WMF's interest to make. We can write a detailed analysis of the language along these lines if you wish, but I don't think it's necessary to do so.
Fourth, if we needed circumstantial evidence on top of this, which we don't, had Stierch actually resigned freely you'd have expected to hear from the WMF spokesperson mighty quickly on this page.
I'm pleased to note that the Signpost appears to have published the only coverage informed by direct written contact with WMF management—contact that reveals clear evidence that Stierch didn't leave but was pushed. Many other news outlets that regard themselves as professional made what is probably a reasonable assumption on that issue, but without primary evidence. The questions here were reasonable to ask, if a little strident; I hope this clears up the matter of verification.
As for mediums that have used direct language, see my post above at 01:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC). Words used include "ousted", "fires", "fired", and "has dismissed" (last two translated). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
So, the answer to Nick's question is that the only people involved in this article who used the term "dismissed" are Signpost editors and writers, and the WMF did not use that term at all. Signpost also used "sacked" and "summarily dismissed", neither of which were used by anyone other than Signpost editors and writers. Again, you're assuming that even the term "dismissed" is equal to "sacked" and the particularly ominous-sounding "summarily dismissed". The latter term is generally used to mean "dismissed without giving the employee an opportunity to rebut", and that in particular requires proof. The WMF is repeatedly saying that they will not discuss the circumstances of Stierch leaving; they are not using the term "dismiss" or any other term used by Signpost. You're writing the article based on your assumptions. Risker (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Risker: no, Frank Schulenburg used it, as quoted here. Ed has presented a full explanation setting out what a reasonable person would readily accept as compelling evidence from written sources. It didn't need to be backed up by strong circumstantial evidence on a number of counts, but there's that, too. I'm tiring of this carping, so please take it directly to the Foundation if you want to pursue it. On the matter of your semantic quibbling about "summarily" you might have a point; but could I point out that above you were quite happy to accuse the Signpost of being "prurient"; that means "having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters, especially the sexual activity of others", according to my US dictionary. Tony (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You have avoided my question. Again. Has Frank or anybody from the Wikimedia Foundation confirmed, unequivocally, explicitly that Sarah was dismissed, as you claim in your article ?
My concern is that, from the first paragraph, your entire story is built upon how you personally have interpreted the e-mail that Frank sent, you are guessing that it would have stated she had resigned, if she had indeed resigned but there's no evidence at all to support that assumption. That destroys the entire argument from the very start
In your second paragraph, you claim that you mentioned dismissal in three of your four questions and that Frank didn't correct you. That's the flimsiest of evidence to support your entire hypothesis. Non correction of your terminology is not an explicit statement (of the sort I and others have demanded evidence of) that Sarah was dismissed.
I'm not interested in a detailed linguistic analysis, all I'm interested in you confirming with a one word answer - YES or NO - whether the Frank or anybody else at the Wikimedia Foundation told you explicitly that Sarah was dismissed. I believe that it's abundantly clear that the idea of dismissal is (at present) simply your hypothesis of events based on you making a number of assumptions, which may or may not be flawed, and at this time (you could well be correct, of course) the article is materially incorrect and should be completely rewritten to remove any suggestion of dismissal, bringing it back into line with the mailing list e-mail where it is stated, unambiguously, that Sarah is no longer an employee of the Foundation.
Nick (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As noted by many of the editors, speculative reporting. Please see Fair Witness for discussion of objectively reporting facts. NE Ent 04:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Claim firmly rejected. Tony (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that the wording has been changed here in a few instances, but I note that several claims that the WMF "dismissed" Sarah Stierch remain in the article (and "let go" means pretty much the same thing): was this intentional? I agree with the comments above about the email plainly not supporting such wording. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't be too pleased: where did that lame "let go" come from? I've reverted to the original wording. And the title still uses "sacks". It's not changing; if you don't like it, go complain to the WMF. Tony (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest that this should be removed per WP:BLPREMOVE unless some firmer evidence to support the claims is provided (eg, something that allows an answer of "yes" to Nick's questions above, which seems the minimum standard here). The WMF does not have primary carriage of enforcing BLP, so I'm not sure why you'd suggest that they be asked to intervene. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
If there is any doubt that this was a dismissal for cause see [1]. Ask Jimbo for further confirmation if you wish. And if it takes two days for someone to no longer be an employee, that is summary dismissal. That is what the term means: instant dismissal. Andreas JN466 12:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I am saddened but unsurprised to see a discussion which started out with a number of people expressing sincere concern for Sarah as a person and a colleague who's in a difficult situation, the facts of which are quite murky, has degenerated into yet another Wikipedian bitch-fest about the intentions of the meanings of the connotations of the words used to define the statements which may or may not have been perceived to have been made in good faith. It's a performative demonstration of so much that's wrong with this place. Perhaps when things have settled down Sarah can read over it and consider what she's lost and what she's gained. Meanwhile, while she's obviously suffering, why doesn't everyone just stop bickering at the funeral, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Terms of use prohibit sockpuppeting where exactly?

Sue Gardner is quoted as saying, "Being deceptive in your editing by using sockpuppets or misrepresenting your affiliation with a company is against Wikipedia policy and is prohibited by our Terms of Use."

I have read the Terms of Use several times. They certainly prohibit saying that you work for a company when you don't, but they do not prohibit NOT saying that you are working for a company. Nor do they prohibit sockpuppeting – after all, sockpuppets are explicitly allowed when used for privacy reasons. Could someone who is more clued up than me point out which passage in the Terms of Use forbids what Wiki-PR did, i.e. using sockpuppets to edit articles for pay? The Terms of Use are here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use Andreas JN466 10:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, the sections of the terms of use dealing with violations of privacy could be read to actually protect Wiki-PR's right to do what they did, by implying that it is a violation of paid editors' privacy rights to even raise the question whether a particular account is operated by a Wiki-PR employee or contractor. Andreas JN466 10:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Take your pick from the following in our Terms of Use
"Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud

...

  • With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;
  • Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive; and
  • Engaging in fraud.

...

Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes

...

  • Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law."
The most obvious violation is the last listed here. Deceptive advertising is against US law (which applies to all users) as well as European Union law, and in most other countries.
If you are not clear what deceptive advertising is in the context of Wikipedia you can pose the question directly to the US FTC at endorsements@ftc.gov .
See also http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/endorsement-guides
Hiding your head in the sand or just denying the obvious is no excuse. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's take an example then, Smallbones: User:Bjoertvedt. His user page states that he is the vice-president of Telenor. He has made 19 edits to the English Wikipedia article Telenor, and has made 228 edits to the Norwegian Wikipedia's Telenor article.

His user page states that he is also an administrator and bureaucrat at the Norwegian Wikipedia, and the vice-chairman of Wikimedia Norway. His contributions were discussed on Jimmy Wales' talk page some weeks ago, a discussion which Jimmy Wales commented in. So we can assume that the Wikimedia board has been well aware of the matter for some time. I see no indication that Mr Bjoertvedt has ceased to be the vice-chairman of Wikimedia Norway.

The Wikimedia Foundation has a well-staffed legal department. I find it hard to imagine that the Foundation would continue to recognise Wikimedia Norway as an affiliated chapter it they thought its vice-chairman's Wikipedia edits "violated applicable law", and thus also Wikimedia's own Terms of Use.

As for the first half of your post, I see no evidence that anyone has demonstrated that Wiki-PR's agents have, "With the intent to deceive, post[ed] content that is false or inaccurate", or that they have attempted "to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresent[ed their] affiliation with any individual or entity, or us[ed] the username of another user with the intent to deceive", or that they have "engag[ed] in fraud". They have simply created a pseudonymous user account without saying who they are and who they work for, and have edited Wikipedia articles. That's what you're doing, too, as I am sure Smallbones is not your real name, and I have no idea who you work for. Andreas JN466 18:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, I can't speak as a lawyer. But creating multiple pseudonymous accounts, with the intent to pretend to be different people when editing, (sockpuppetry), could be interpreted as "to impersonat[ing] another user or individual", and not revealing an affiliation with a client (or perhaps more specifically denying such an affiliation when asked) would seem to fall under "misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity". The Wiki-PR and Morning277 SPI is too convoluted for me to follow, but if it can be shown that Wiki-PR denied having an affiliation with a client, or created multiple accounts in order to deceive, then they would be acting against the terms of use. However, if they didn't deny their affiliation and used only a single account, as per what you are describing with Bjoertvedt, then it is not clear to me that they would be violating the terms of use.
My reading is that the terms of use does not explicitly forbid paid editing, but that it can be read as forbidding some of the practices often used by paid editors/advocates. - Bilby (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
My and I believe most people's reading would be that if you create two pseudonymous accounts, you are not impersonating another user or individual. For you to impersonate another individual, that other individual has to exist. That is what impersonation means. You cannot impersonate an imaginary person. Moreover, creating several pseudonymous accounts is explicitly permitted in the English Wikipedia per WP:SOCKLEGIT. So it can hardly be a breach of the Wikimedia Terms of Use for editors to give the appearance that they are two or three different people, as long as they keep the accounts' fields of activity separate.
Wikipedians are not actually allowed to speculate about another editor's job or place of employment. My understanding is that any Wikipedian is entitled to refuse to answer such questions—which is the rationale Dirk Franke gives for why paid editing is generally accepted in the German Wikipedia: the right to anonymity comes first. The English Wikipedia's arbitration committee has similarly stated on various occasions that the policies guaranteeing the right to edit anonymously are in tension with the guidelines discouraging editing with a conflict of interest, and that the conflict between these two sets of policies and guidelines is unresolved—and that in the final analysis, the English Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the conflict-of-interest guideline. This is the contradictory environment Wikipedia has created, and it is why there is no clear statement forbidding paid editing and sockpuppeteering in the Terms of Use.
What adds to the problem is that nobody tells new users about any of this. When a new account is registered, there is no warning that they should not edit about their place of employment or on behalf of their customers (not least because there is no agreement in the community that this should be a rule–such editing is only ever "discouraged"). Wikipedia bills itself as the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and the message given to the public is: "Just click Edit". Wikipedia tries to have it both ways, and the inevitable result is confusion and contradiction. Andreas JN466 23:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
(EC)You are arguing that the use of sockpuppets is generally acceptable here, but if you read WP:SOCK you'll see that sockpuppets are generally not acceptable. Other than arguing that "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia where anybody can sockpuppet" you are just repeating the same old arguments, and not addressing the fact that putting an advertisement in Wikipedia without clearly and conspicuously disclosing that you've been paid to do so is deceptive advertising and against the law (and thus against our Terms of Use). It's clear enough that anybody who isn't trying to misunderstand can understand it, so I'll just repeat. Watch the video at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/endorsement-guides and
If you are still not clear what deceptive advertising is in the context of Wikipedia you can pose the question directly to the US FTC at endorsements@ftc.gov . Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd be curious to hear from others about whether or not impersonation requires that the other person exists - my feeling is that if I create an account, then create a second account, and try to present the second account in an attempt to deceive people into thinking it belongs to someone else, it would come under "impersonating another user". It wouldn't come under "impersonating a specific user", but could still be read as impersonation. This is one of those legal/definition things, though, and perhaps only a lawyer (or court) could answer it to any satisfaction.
The conflict between outing and identifying COI editing is a problem, and one that we have handled by prioritising privacy. But there is a difference between "are you person x, who works for company y" and "do you have a conflict of interest in regard to this article". My reading has been that we can't ask the first question, but we are permitted to ask the second. If someone says "no, I do not have a COI" when they do have one, then they are misrepresenting their relationship with the article's subject or company. Misrepresenting might well involve more than not revealing a COI, but it would involve denying a COI when asked. - Bilby (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Creating a second account, and trying to present the second account in an attempt to deceive people into thinking it belongs to someone else, is not what the ordinary woman or man in the street would understand by the expression "impersonate another user", and moreover is explicitly allowed by English Wikipedia policy. If you are of the opinion that said policy violates the Wikimedia Terms of Use, you are not in touch with community consensus. Andreas JN466 12:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are legitimate uses of an alternative account, but "avoiding scrutiny" isn't one of them, except in very narrowly defined situations. This isn't one of them. But yes, there is room for interpretation - my assumption is the the WMF interpreted it one way, and you another. - Bilby (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you'll find that for terms of use to have any binding force, they have to be formulated in such a way as to obviously mean, to an outsider, what you want them to say. Ask your mum or any other non-Wikipedian to interpret the following for you: "What is not allowed is engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud: such as attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive". Truly, what do you think was the likely intent of the person who wrote that passage? If you ask 100 people, I guarantee you the answer you will get is that you must not pretend to be some other person walking the earth (like Barack Obama), or pretend to represent some actually existing person or entity (like Barack Obama, or the State Department) that you in fact don't have a right to represent. Terms of Use have to be formulated clearly. You can't change your interpretation to make it mean what you want it to mean when it suits you. Any lawyer would make mincemeat out of you if you tried that in court. The onus is on you to say what you mean, and say it clearly. So let's stop the nonsense. --Andreas JN466 13:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
To get an answer, we would need to ask the WMF legal team what they had in mind, and how they interpreted the phrase. Otherwise all we can do is guess. - Bilby (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
If that's your belief, Smallbones, then write to the Foundation's legal department and ask them to look into and address, as a matter of urgency, the matter with User:Bjoertvedt, and various editors named here, none of whom ensured that there would be "clear and conspicuous disclosure of the paid relationship" visible to the reader. Come back here when that is done, or alternatively show me a single successful prosecution of a Wikipedian for undisclosed paid edits under US deceptive advertising law, and I will change my mind. I will not be holding my breath. Andreas JN466 12:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So Andreas is pushing wikipediocracy as his source of wisdom on this. Frankly, I think wikipediocracy is a piece of crap, and has no bearing on this or any other discussion on Wikipedia. So I'll just repeat. Watch the video at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/endorsement-guides and if you are still not clear what deceptive advertising is in the context of Wikipedia you can pose the question directly to the US FTC at endorsements@ftc.gov . Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones, you do realise that Wikipedia articles do not contain personal endorsements, but statements traceable to reliable sources? This FTC video is completely irrelevant to this discussion. No Wiki-PR or other paid editor would have written in Wikipedia, "I used this product and it's great." (At least not unless they were a complete idiot.) Such statements would readily and rightly be removed under WP:OR. Andreas JN466 10:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"an endorsement means any advertising message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser"

"When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed."

These are from the FTC Endorsement Guides http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf

In short if a paid editor puts their "findings" in an article it's an endorsement and the paid relationship needs to be disclosed. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

For God's sake, Smallbones, Wikipedia articles aren't "advertising messages", and Wikipedia editors do not put their "findings" in them: they summarise sources and findings published by others. The FTC is NOT talking about Wikipedia articles. For reference, here is the Miami Herald, today, advising people to create Wikipedia pages about their companies: [2]. Do you think a paper like the Miami Herald would be advising its readers to break the law? Seriously, you are barking up the wrong tree, very, very persistently. Andreas JN466 15:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Judge by edits, not accusations

Excellent piece. Here's another thought: in all that fuss, do we even know which articles were affected? I would expect, in fact, that an experienced Wikipedian like Sarah would edit ethically - respecting notability, neutrality and such, and thus, if we were to review the "paid for" articles, we would find nothing to remove or delete. If I am right, this would just go to show that we are totally overreacting when it comes to this form of paid editing, making it into a boogeyman, and carrying out witch hunts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are not clear what deceptive advertising is in the context of Wikipedia you can pose the question directly to the US FTC at endorsements@ftc.gov .
See also http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/endorsement-guides Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Your answer is totally irrelevant to my statement. Without being able to analyze the specific edits, it is impossible to judge whether they hurt or benefited Wikipedia. It is totally plausible one can take money for editing, and still deliver neutral, quality edits. To assume otherwise violates AGF, for starters. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. The law requires clear and conspicuous disclosure of the paid relationship (where it is not obvious in the context) in any situation where you are giving information that might affect a consumer's choice. Your opinion of whether the information is a "neutral, quality edit" is irrelevant. You do not intend to tell people that they should break US law, do you? As I said, if you are not clear on the law in the context of Wikipedia, all you need to do is ask the FTC at endorsements@ftc.gov . Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd like clarification on what legally constitutes an endorsement under these rules - a neutral description of a company or product, which makes no direct claims of the quality of the products or services, doesn't feel like an endorsement. But perhaps that would still fall under the heading. - Bilby (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense indeed. Since when do we invoke law in the context of Wikipedia discussions? A more relevant link is Wikipedia:No legal threats, IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Since when do we ignore the law? If you think I've made a legal threat to any editor, please take it to a proper forum. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"an endorsement means any advertising message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser"

"When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed."

These are from the FTC Endorsement Guides http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf

Your next question is likely to be "What is an advertisement?" Believe me, the FTC defines "advertisement" extremely broadly - essentially any communication to consumers from the company. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles that have been discussed in this context on the Wikimedia mailing list include Sally Hogshead, The Leadership Challenge, and Barry Posner (academic). The Leadership Challenge appeared as a DYK (Did You Know?) entry on the Wikipedia main page in autumn last year; and there is an unprocessed DYK nomination for Sally Hogshead. Andreas JN466 19:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
In my personal evaluation, the articles on Posner and Hogshead are certainly not inappropriately promotional, & the subjects are clearly notable. Since they're within the field I usually work on, I'm making some improvements in the prose. I consider the long contents description of the article on the book a little excessive, but the book is notable, and many other WP articles on nonfictional books of this sort have similar contents. Sarah has written many better articles than any of these, & I hope she continues to do so.
On a more general issue, if she had declared a COI, would the WMF have still objected? (There is another potential problem, that a client may have mistakenly thought her being employed by the Foundation gave her work extra authority.)
And on another issue, there is something here I think very much excessive, which is the Signpost's featured coverage. The issue could have been handled with less personal an emphasis. Fluffernutter's comment on color seems appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi DGG, our coverage is balanced between reporting the event (which was the major topic of note in the Wikimedia movement this week and reported on very similarly in other news outlets) and related but non-personal topics like paid editing on other Wikipedias. Where do you think we've been too personal? Thanks for your comments—we take constructive criticism on board and incorporate it in future articles. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with Ed's comment. The criticism is only "constructive" if it's backed up by specifics rather than couched in sweeping, vague terms. So there's nothing yet on this page that I'd be looking to "take on board" and incorporate in future articles. I look forward to specifics here. Tony (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I recognize this is journalism, not encyclopedia writing, & can therefore focus a little more upon people--and I by no means think WPedians however well-liked should be immune--the Signpost has in general been very important in countering the impression to the contrary that one can sometimes get from various noticeboards. But some good practices to minimize harm still apply, and I would have done more like what we do in the encyclopedia with negative material about individuals that nonetheless must be included: omitting the picture, not repeating the name multiple times, highlighting the significance of what the rules are for WPedians in general and staff members in particular & their manifold ambiguity, not on what has happened to a particular person. There are impt. general problems here, affecting enWP and all WPs: the fact that a particular person very widely respected has been involved does add to both the interest & the significance, but is not the root of the problem.. The people making the comments have mostly focussed on the true issues. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Taking a stance where none was needed

Based on what I've read here, Sarah Stierch could have been let go because as an employee of the WMF, she shouldn't have accepted money to write content -- that's a conflict of interest few employers would have stood for, & I doubt anyone would have faulted the WMF for its actions. However, by the way this was handled it's clear that the Foundation -- & Jimmy Wales -- don't want to see any contributors making money from writing for Wikipedia, no matter what the conditions of employment are. Even though they are doing quite well living off of the volunteerism of others. -- llywrch (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm indifferent about when a stance was needed or the ethics of "living" off volunteerism, but I think you are right that her termination was largely laid out to her because she was an employee of the WMF. If this had been strictly about paid advocacy against the terms of use as an editor, and not in relationship to her employment at the WMF, they would have had trouble outright sacking her. I cannot think of many cases where you can work for one company and be paid by another for essentially the same work but in the interests of that party which may conflict with your primary employer. Mkdwtalk 03:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to the WMF

As a condition of employment, my employer asks all employees to read and sign an eight-page document outlining ethical policies and conflicts of interest, providing clear and generally problematic situations. If WMF hasn't done this already, the legal counsel needs to get to it immediately. -- kosboot (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This is certainly done in other non-profit organizations, as a routine HR training activity for new hires, along with training on how to recognize and deal with sexual harassment. Many organizations regard an employee's failure to follow the guidelines as a failure on the part of management to provide them with training. Can an employee accept a cup of coffee from a client? If that is not an issue, then when does accepting cash or gifts become a problem? At $75? Maybe $150? A yearly ethics course for current employees can also be easily administered online, complete with printable certificate, as an update on any guidelines that might have changed. —Neotarf (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Character assassination

No evidence of advocacy, no evidence of problematic editing, and no evidence of any harm. Meanwhile, a person's reputation has been damaged by having these accusations made public by her employer, while the government and corporate PR shills, hacks, and spooks edit away as before. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Sacrificed on the altar of political PR correctness, because there was the Wiki-PR scandal a few weeks ago, and the WMF had to be seen to take a strong stance against paid editing given the comments they'd made at the time that scandal broke.
I thought it was most interesting that the Foundation did absolutely nothing about Wiki-PR, whose activities had been under investigation for months, until the matter hit the press, and has done nothing to date to establish clear ground rules with regard to the thousands and thousands of paid edits Wikipedia receives each day. These are all Wikimedia PR efforts in their own right, rather than measures to address the actual problem. The Foundation should update its Terms of Use one way or the other to make clear what is and is not allowed, looking at present accepted practices not just in the English Wikipedia, but all major Wikipedias. Andreas JN466 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:GRAPEVINE:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards... Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We've already explained at considerable length why this kind of tendentious kind of post will be disregarded. Jayen, I agree entirely with your comment. Tony (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
This piece has no informative value without the actual facts of the matter. More importantly, this piece should never have been written without input from the accused. What we have is targeted character assasination of a young Millennial, the most underemployed generation in recent history. This woman, who is struggling to survive under the weight of student loans and the continuing Great Recession, stands accused of trying to pay her debts by making a few dollars writing articles. Why doesn't this article cover the human interest angle? Why doesn't this article talk about how difficult it is to survive in the Bay Area on this type of income? Why doesn't the article investigate what it means to be a paid writer and why people would do it? Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
That's an extremely strong and unwarranted statement. The article is factual in all accounts and is certainly much weaker than news sites that used the words "Busted And Fired" in their headlines; we also purposely chose to explore paid editing on other Wikimedia sites in an effort to lessen the focus on Sarah. We don't look at her living situation because our raison d'être is covering the Wikimedia movement. Your second idea is actually fantastic, but it would have been completely unrealistic to write up in the limited timeframe we had. Thanks for commenting, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
You don't know any of the facts of the matter and the article doesn't state any of the facts. Seems par for the course for this website. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
We do know the facts; and could I point out the human-interest angle in our link to Sarah's tweet? Tony (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Viridita's idea sounds good. Seeing the "other side" of paid editing, why they started doing it, and stuff. How about doing that for other issue of the Signpost? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The signpost actually has done some interviews with people who make their living from Wikipedia in a series of columns/interviews done by Ocaasi, at least if I'm remembering right, although more such things in the future would be a good idea. Sarah is a good friend of mine in real-life, and is someone whose Wikimedia work I have (and do) greatly respect. If I thought that there was something in this column that I thought amounted to a BLP violation or was likely to do Sarah significant harm, I would be eviscerating Tony and Eddie. I think that Tony and Eddie have a point in pointing out that the language they use was less strong than that reported in the general media. An incident of this nature is of interest to the ENWP community, and only part of the article is devoted to coverage of sarah. I wish this whole situation hadn't happened, but I don't believe this can be fairly described as a hit piece on Sarah. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    • So, maybe you can tell us what actually happened, as the article fails to do that. Was there any advocacy? Or are we just talking about paid editing which she was open about and disclosed in public. Where's the conflict of interest? Did her job duties conflict with writing an article about a book? I get nothing factual about the incident from this article. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr, sorry but where was the advocacy?

So there was evidence of WP:PE, who cares? Where is the evidence of that combining with the advocacy she has been so publicly accused of? As if ideological advocacy is any less pernicious... Where's the evidence? Could someone point me in that direction? I saw none presentend in this piece (but perhaps I missed it). Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Paid Advocacy Editing" a polemic term

So-called "paid advocacy editing" is a polemic term — a conscious attempt to muddy the water with respect to paid editing. It's really quite simple: there is paid editing; there is non-paid editing. Both are permitted under Wikipedia policy. There is POV editing; there is Neutral POV editing. The former is prohibited (whether or not the content writer is paid or not), the latter is required (whether or not the content writer is paid or not). Now, the rub is this: paid editors have a financial incentive to "cheat" on NPOV. This is why they must be supervised. They need to declare their COI editing and their contributions need to be subject to even-handed, fair third party examination. Instead, we have a small handful of anti-paid editing fanatics running roughshod over any paid editor they can find. And so the paid editors hide, and so they can't be supervised like they need to be. This problem starts at the top, with a few WMF insiders who act as flag-bearers and enablers of the anti-paid editing extremists. These extremists do not reflect community consensus. Their abuses need to be reined in by the community. Only then can we address the problem of paid POV editing in a realistic way. Carrite (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

More commentary at Wikipediocracy

I suggest that interested readers here check out the current Wikipediocracy blog post on this subject, published earlier today. I'm not allowed to post the link on-wiki. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is any doubt that there are angry people in the world, that site collects them. At times they make valid points, but they're lost in their excessive Fox-like hyperbole and verbal histrionics. -- kosboot (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe some Wikipediocracy members say the same thing about how Wikipedians react to outside criticism. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
"how Wikipedians..." as if all Wikipedians are a single type (which is what they claim). If they would systematically approach in a kinder manner, or gave a fragment of an indication that they actually want to help and not destroy Wikipedia and the people who edit it, or if they showed some acknowledgment that they're willing to consider issues from multiple sides, perhaps I would give them the benefit of a doubt. All I see is incredibly intense anger and excessive hyperbole, strongly suggesting that these are a group of people exploiting Wikipedia while their true aim is to vent their lives' frustrations and other personal issues. -- kosboot (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. --- Paul Simon.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Op-ed: WikiCup competition beginning a new year (365 bytes · 💬)

I'm currently in the contest, and have already scored some points-- I'm really excited :) Good luck everyone! Newyorkadam (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Public Domain Day: Why the year 2019 is so significant (6,630 bytes · 💬)

Thanks, Kosboot. The length of copyright terms goes well beyond any justifiable range that would protect creators and their direct heirs (or, in the case or companies, their investors). It is now protecting the monopoly of big media companies for an unreasonable length of time and, as you note, preventing new creativity. It would be nice if Congress would stand up to Disney and the other big media companies that have lobbied so hard to extend copyright term limits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'll echo those thanks. It's nice to see this spelled out. The copyright problems for modern works are complex and there have been many confused conversations on Wikimedia Commons regarding the 70-95 year gap between US law and the rest of the world, but when it comes to older works it just seems silly. The English Wikipedia has the "fair use" policy which allows hosting content not allowed in other jurisdictions, but this only helps countries that have a large English speaking population. So for example, an image of an 1637 book cannot be transferred to Commons, though its article on the English Wikipedia can include a picture:
  •  
    Version suitable for other Wikipedias, because it was published in 1549 before being copyrighted
  •  
    Version suitable under "fair use" on English Wikipedia

In other Wikipedia languages, only the left picture can be used. Jane (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons is hosted in the USA. Why must it follow copyright laws of any other jurisdiction? We do not follow the more liberal copyright laws of Canada so why do we follow the more restrictive ones of Europe? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The allowability of the pictures of the 1637 book depends on local laws. In some jurisdictions, a direct copy with no creativity whatsoever in the copying process does not create copyright on the resulting image (Finland); in some jurisdictions, it does (France); in some again, it is left undetermined (Estonia). But if we're talking about the problems U.S. laws cause to the functioning of Commons, we might actually hold a pure hypothetical thought what might the situation look like if it was hosted in some jurisdiction that would be more free-minded towards copyright - or, indeed, outside any jurisdiction at all, like out on the ocean or on a satellite. Would it be more or less beneficial? It's an interesting question. You know, the servers aren't exactly immovable. --Ehitaja (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
In this regard, I think IMSLP has worked out things to the best advantage: They have multiple servers in different countries allowing them to host files that would be problematic for some countries. For example, I just uploaded works that were published before 1923 -- they're clearly PD in the US, but since the composer was born in Russia and died in 1966, he is not PD anywhere else in the world. Yet they still accept the works and allow downloading, presuming "good faith" for those downloading. -- kosboot (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This isn't really a good example because that's not a copyright or fair use issue. The 1637 book of common prayer is under copyright in the UK but it is in the public domain in the United States. It's just Commons' policy that prevents it hosting the image, as that project chooses to have restrictions above the minimum legal requirement. Every Wikipedia could legally host the picture locally as well, because they are hosted in the US by a US organisation on a US domain name regardless of language, unless their specific project's policy prevents them. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how to feel about current United States copyright practices, but I am comforted to think that starting in 2019 and for every year after there will be material queued to enter public domain and be shared. Thanks so much for this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Any further term extensions will not be a walkover for the "content" industries (RIAA, MPAA etc.) as the Sonny Bono / "Mickey Mouse" act was in 1998 -- the general U.S. public is now much more aware of how such things impact them personally... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the Book of Common Prayer images above, it's worth noting that the publishing restriction comes from the law of the United Kingdom, not the law of the United States. That's not to defend U.S. law - it clearly is designed to bolster company profits, not to encourage creative artists or to benefit the general public - but it is worth noting that the law is, in some cases, even worse elsewhere in the world. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
For example, many countries don't have the same concept of "fair use" that Wikipedia relies on. Additionally, new servers probably wouldn't solve the problem anyway. Wikimedia is still a US-based US-registered organisation and must follow US laws. The United States also pobably considers the .org domain to be in US cyberspace and subject to US law regardless of the physical location of the server; it does so with .com. (Public Interest Registry, who handle .org, are based in Virginia, just a few miles from Wikimedia's servers.) It would be very difficult to play games with copyright law like this, especially while being the fifth biggest website on the planet with all the attention that implies. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Technology report: Gearing up for the Architecture Summit (1,051 bytes · 💬)

  • It was not immediately apparent to me that by architecture you meant software architecture. Perhaps I should have made assumptions based on finding this in the technology report. Thanks to a widget, I typically only hover over internal links versus clicking on them so the MediaWiki links didn't give me clues until I encountered heavy technobabble. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry about that, I usually try to avoid technical jargon, but missed that the meaning of "architecture" might not be immediately obvious. Feel free to edit it or add links if you think it could be made clearer :) Legoktm (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Traffic report: Tragedy and television (1,445 bytes · 💬)

  • As anyone at WP:MMA could have told you, the reason for the spike in views for UFC 168 was that Anderson Silva's shin broke when Chris Weidman checked one of Anderson's muay thai leg kicks. The footage became a SEO boon as most people reliably stop to see a disastrous wreck. UFC has had hundreds of events, a few with higher buy rates and ticket sales, but this one had the most gruesome finish since the same fate befell Corey Hill. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    • UFC 166 and UFC 162 also made Top 25 appearances, so while this may have had a particularly gruesome finish, it didn't need it to get on here. Serendipodous 09:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • American Hustle is (loosely) centered on Abscam and political corruption, not primarily about art forgery. - Dravecky (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Jumping into the television universe (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-01-08/WikiProject report


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2014-01-08&oldid=1125229902"