Wikipedia talk:Submission Standards

message: I'm not clear on the implications of this. If I appoint Wikimedia to this role, may I still chase copyright infringements on my own if I choose to? IE, is this a "non-exclusive" appointment? Martin
: Generally speaking one can appoint many agents for the same purpose unless the agency agreement is "exclusive". This is a practical example: you go to employment agent A and are sent to job interviews; the next day you go to employment agent B and go to more job interviews. You are the principal for the first employment agent for the jobs she introduces you to and the principal of the second agent for the jobs he introduces you to. Of course if you have several agents they might introduce you to the same job and if you take it they might both ask you for a commission and depending on the agreement with each agent you might have to pay both of them a commission, they can both be your agent.  As well, you can find your own job and not pay any commission. I put this in so that if there are infringements then anyone from Wikipedia can stop the infringements, but the authors are free to do this too. To make it clearer I've added the term non-exclusive to end any doubt. — Alex756 04:22, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright compliance officer 

message: I'm no expert on the law in this area, but I'm a bit confused by:
:Defamatory statements include statements that may change a person's or company's reputation causing them damage.
I'd expect users should be allowed to make such statements if they are true, for example discussing the Exxon-Valdez oil spill or the Iran-Contra affair.  Should "include statements" be changed to "include false statements" (or "include false or unsubstantiated statements", or similar) to reflect this? --Delirium 07:00, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
:That was a bug, now fixed. --mav 07:50, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defamatory statements 

message: I think such a thing would be helpful. Remember that this page may be the first a new editor sees. We don't want to scare the heck out of him. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:56, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Less legalese-y summary required at top of page?

message: This document is a legal contract, and as such should probably be protected, as we have protected the local copy of the GFDL. Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 13:01, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be protected when it goes live, which hopefully won't be for a while yet. Martin 21:29, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: Until it goes live (with protection), I'll add a notice saying that it's not live yet. Otherwise, we might have a temporary mistake here that endangers Wikipedia, and if somebody says "But I read that version, and it says that I can do this!", then we could get trouble. -- Toby Bartels 00:43, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Most of these agreements have notes that if a section of the agreement is deemed to be not legally enforceable, then it is stricken out, and the remainder of the terms are still in effect. Should this agreement have such a clause? Martin 21:29, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that is called a severability clause, feel free to add it. — Alex756 02:03, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unenforcability 

message: I'm not seeing the benefit of asserting penalty of perjury. What would this mean in practical terms? Martin 21:38, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That people are less likely to lie. You sign documents like this all the time. If Wikipedia is going to act as a copyright compliance agent then those who are working on that should be assured that the person who submitted materials is telling the truth, no? After all, under the DMCA such an agent has to state more or less the same thing. — Alex756 02:02, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: Your changed language is fine Martin, an affirmation is sufficient and the layout is definitely improved. Some people gets scared by that word perjury, they are not as bold as someone like Bill Clinton. — Alex756 04:06, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perjury 

message: I don't think we have one of these do we? Might the launch of this page into the big time be the time to introduce one? In particular it might be nice to state somewhere that wikimedia reserves the right for a wikimedia developer (or in the future, a sysop?) to do a username to IP address look up for the purposes of tracing possible sock puppetry etc. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:58, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a privacy policy (at least a draft). I think you will find it here meta:draft privacy policy. It is another thing that should be linked at least to the main page (it does not really have to be linked to every page, does it mav?) I guess we can also put a link to it in the list of Wikipedia policies that people agree to.— Alex756 02:15, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn that meta! :-) I wasn't aware of that page. I'll go catch up with any debate that's being going on over there about content and link placing of such a policy. Thanks Alex. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:38, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A privacy policy

message: I'm not sure if this is here yet, but the heading names suggest no; so I'll ask.
The idea of "retiring" old versions to archive status looks like a pretty good one; it means that we don't have to worry about copyright infringements in the history (at least not unless and until somebody specifically requests us to remove them).
But when they're mentioned again at the end, it sounds like I might not be able to revert to a previous version!
I'll explain:
# A writes a nice article.
# B deletes some of A's material (an edit war, a mistake, a disagreement that is later resolved, vandalism, ...).
# C (not A!) wishes to revert back to A's version -- either directly, or by copying at least some of what A wrote.
Since Wikimedia -- probably, nobody -- is publishing A's version, does that mean that it's not available under the GNU FDL?
Does that mean that C can't actually do this reversion without A's permission?
Sure, A almost certainly would give permission -- but it could be a real pain to have to ask!
It's not clear to me what this archival theory says about this, but it seems as if the answers are technically "Yes, it does mean just that!".
-- Toby Bartels 00:24, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a discussion with Brian Viber about this a while back on one of the mailing lists. I think there is a position that says, (1) once released into GFDL, always in GFDL and (2) once something is in the archives the preferred version to use is the present version, not previous versions. This basically discourages edit wars, vandalism, etc. and encourages people to add material and not delete material, i.e. it is not saying you cannot revert to a previous version if there is an edit war or vandalism. Putting in the notice about the archives protects Wikipedia because if there infringing materials in the archives, we can point to this notice as informing people that those materials are retired. However, if someone wants to use a previous GFDL version they can, but it is not being encouraged. That may not seem clear, it is a difficult issue, but this is trying to find a compromise to encourage Wikipedia to grow and to make sure that most people link to or copy the live version and dealing with the thorny issues as discussed at Wikipedia:copyright violations on history pages. — Alex756 02:25, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The GFDL is pretty clear on this.  The license it grants is perpetual and irrevocable, so for us to "quit publishing" something is without meaning.  To do so while still making it available in archives and to deny others the right to copy it pursuant to the GFDL, is something the GFDL expressly forbids. UninvitedCompany
It is not without meaning. It does not state that one cannot copy it. And to quit publishing something is very significant; it happens all the time off the internet. If you publish a book under GFDL then people can only copy it if they have a copy of that book, they cannot publish drafts that you are not distributing. The wiki is not quite like books because wikis allows for multiple versioning and continual re-editing; one could argue that this is one reason that the GFDL is an inappropriate licencing tool for collaborative wiki-based knowledge base such as Wikipedia. There is nothing in the GFDL that states that a text cannot have current versions on the internet even if prior versions are available in the archives for archival purposes. This text is putting people on notice that not everything in history pages has been released under the GFDL because it is in violation of some law such as copyright law. If one has the option to use two texts and we are stating a preference to use the most current that is not in violation of the GFDL, it is just stating that user should use the current version. How does that violate the GFDL?  Why would we want to encourage people to use materials that are old, out of date or incorrect or are not NPOV, if there is no current version that is being "published" vs. versions that have been retired from publication then there is little point in trying to improve articles, no?  There is an argument that one cannot unilaterially remove a prior contribution of an author (as you cannot do this in Berne countries that actually comply with the moral rights provisions of Berne unlike the un-Berne US legislation that somehow continues to exist) and this is another reason that current versions take precedence over GFDL versions. Not everything in the GFDL is necessarily enforceable anyway, it remains untested; it would not suprise me if parts of it could be struck down as being unenforceable and even irrelevant, so why not protect all the Wikipedia contributors to make sure that the most complete versions are continually distributed rather than out of date, poorly edited stuff?  — Alex756 03:20, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: Generally good change James, thanks. The only thing I really don't understand is "You accept that the Wikipedia may limit distribution of prior versions to logged in contributors or may split portions of history into live and inactive or old versions." This is not really the way it is now and I think we can just take this out the rest of your changes simplify it but still get across the essense of what I was trying to get at. The page history really does document the collaborative process, it is just that current edits should be considered live and the history should be considered "archives". — Alex756 04:51, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting to previous versions 

message: The Choice of Law section says that the contract is under the laws of the state of California, yet any legal action must take place in Florida.  How is this possible?  Presumably the Florida courts cannot enforce California state law. --Delirium 06:52, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
:Choice of law and forum are two different things. The laws of the state of California is used because that is where the server is and there is a lot of case law dealing with the internet that is done in California, thus California law is a good choice of law as one can figure out what the implications of California law are; there are much fewers companies and disputes in Florida dealing with the internet, also the 9th District Court of Appeals is there and has a lot of expertise because of the "entertainment" industry. Thus California law is more "predictable" to know what  You can agree to have a particular law apply to your contract no matter where you are, except anything that might be illegal in the country where you want the contract enforced will be disallowed. Thus, you can have the Swiss Civil Code apply to your contract even though it is between parties in Hong Kong if that is what the parties know the best. The courts in Florida can enforce a contract that has law from other states, that is done routinely in the US; here in Brooklyn the county law library has law books and treatises for all fifty states, and the case law, statutes and treatises are all available online throughout the United States so most lawyers and judges have no problem with this approach, we also have treatises that show the difference between the laws of different states. Coourts in the US can also enforce contracts with law from other countries, that is less routine but legally allowable as well. This occurs in most countries. The Florida "choice of venue" provision is to make it easier for the foundation. We don't want people suing Wikimedia all over the world, do we? This is really to keep the costs to the foundation down to a minimum. — Alex756 20:06, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that sounds reasonable then.  I just wasn't aware that state courts were willing to enforce the state law of other states. --Delirium 21:36, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
Actually practically all disputes will be resolved by arbitration (this may not be the same arbitration as the arbitration committee, if the dispute does not have to do with some edit someone makes) so the only thing that will actually get to court is the decision of the arbitration and that will be in the court local to Jimbo in St. Petersburg Florida (hope Jimbo has no plans on moving to Alabama!) so the only time Wikimedia will ever go to court is if some former user is out there trying to overturn their arbitration agreement and they show up on Jimbo's home turf and want to argue about it in front of a judge. — Alex756 02:19, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of Law section is very confusing 

message: There are some terms here that aren't really about submission. Perhaps they should be on a seperate page? IMO, this page should discuss what people are agreeing to by submitting to Wikipedia, and we should have another page indicating what people are agreeing to by using Wikipedia at all. Perhaps at Wikipedia:terms of use? Martin 01:01, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We could just add that stuff to the Copyrights page, it is just stating some stuff that could be interpreted any way in the GFDL, i.e. using the most current versions of pages and the Title 17 Notice. I just hate to have yet another legal-ese page hanging around, I guess it could just appear on the main page, though if we have disclaimers, copyright and submission standards then also a terms of use makes sense, others have already suggested it elsewhere. — Alex756  talk 01:07, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-submission standards 

message: :I just drafted a Wikipedia:terms of use using materials from this page. I have not removed the stuff from this page yet. — Alex756  talk 02:03, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just done so. Martin 16:06, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: There is no inherent defect with an arbitration clause, your scenarios indicate you do not know much about the enforcement of arbitration agreements. If there is such a scenario as you suggest it would probably be vacated. Anyway you do also not seem to realize that as Wikimedia is a not for profit corporation there are laws that must be followed if the board is incompetent. Also the Attorney General of the State of Florida has oversight over the organization. I doubt a court would hold that a member dispute such as that could not be brought before the court as these provisions are "public order" and policy provisions and they trump any agreement put into a contract. — Alex756  talk 18:54, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Forking off ''Terms of use'' clauses

message: By contributing to Wikipedia, you agree that the Wikimedia Foundation may publish your submission, before or after being modified as described above, under one or more of:
* The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).
* The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License
* The Creative Commons Attribution License
:: Yeah, I figured that was a little controversial too... :) I removed it, since I added it. Martin 14:49, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creative commons 

message: cf .
Since Jimbo has made this "official", to some degree, at some point we should make accepting this interpretation part of the submission standards, which will allow us to be rather more confident that redistributors can use it, and increase our safeguards against users who disagree with it demanding that all their text be removed. However, as this is likely to be controversial, it's something for a later version, I expect. Martin 13:01, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images as aggregation 

message: These submission standards apply to any and all contributions you make to Wikipedia irrespective of date or the then status of the terms and conditions of your submission.
This is problematic.  According to this, it seems that if I one day log in and the submission standards have been modified, they are automatically applied to all contributions I have ever made.  Considering that I am considered bound to this agreement merely by reading Wikipedia, and that I have no way to terminate the agreement, this is completely unacceptable.
This needs to be removed, better notification of a change (and more importantly, notification of the initial institution of the standards) needs to be incorporated, and there needs to be a way to refuse or terminate the agreement.
anthony (see warning)
You can't terminate the entire thing, because the GFDL can't be retracted. I believe that you're bound not by reading, but by editing (reading is the wikipedia:terms of use). Tim has edited to give better notification - is this sufficient? Martin 23:56, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Retroactive?