"The Wikimedia Foundation is updating its Terms of Use."

[Tharthan]

Am I the only one who took notice after seeing this announcement?:



For the most part, the changes appear minor, but some stuff that stuck out to me included:

1.

CURRENT WORDING: "You adhere to the below Terms of Use, and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities."

PROPOSED WORDING: "You adhere to the below Terms of Use, to the Universal Code of Conduct* and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities."

2.

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

PROPOSED WORDING: "Because the Wikimedia Projects are collaboratively edited, the vast majority of the content that we host is provided by users, and we do not take an editorial role."

(emphasis added)

3.

CURRENT WORDING: "The Projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation only exist because of the vibrant community of users like you who collaborate to write, edit, and curate the content. We happily welcome your participation in this community. We encourage you to be civil and polite in your interactions with others in the community, to act in good faith, and to make edits and contributions aimed at furthering the mission of the shared Project."

PROPOSED WORDING: "The Projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation only exist because of the vibrant community of users like you who collaborate to write, edit, and curate the content. We happily welcome your participation in this community. We encourage you to be civil and polite in your interactions with others in the community, to act in good faith, and to make edits and contributions aimed at furthering the mission of the shared Project. We ask that all users review and follow the Universal Code of Conduct* (UCoC), which lays out requirements for collegial, civil collaboration across all Projects that we host."

*

The UCoC is a controversial measure that was put in place not all too long ago. The specific document that was enacted was claimed by its proponents to be absolutely necessary in order to make, for instance, Wikipedia, a "safer place". However, there are concerns held by many Wikimedians that A. the policy has the danger of causing Wikimedians to feel the need to self-censor themselves if they happen to hold a less popular perspective on a certain topic or matter (or to simply avoid participating in any project work that is related in any way to that topic or matter, because of the suspicion that any attempt to work within that topic or area would be skating on thin ice), and B. it will end up being used over the long term to penalise users who don't engage in the aforementioned self-censorship.

Note that it is openly admitted that "[t]he UCoC may not fit into all cultural contexts," and "[t]he UCoC will most certainly not meet all community needs." Nevertheless, all Wikimedia projects in all languages without exception—and all Wikimedians—are expected to follow it, lest they suffer the consequences. And so, vague phrasing such "[...]beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, intercultural environment" and terminology left without explanation in the document, such as "safe" and "those who damage or distort", now take absolute precedence over the policies and standards that have been enacted in Wikimedia communities over the years which were tailored to the needs and contexts of those communities.

And indeed, any community policies that may have been in place up to this point for this or that Wikimedia project in this or that language, that might have opted to take a different approach than the UCoC does toward something that happens to be touched upon in the document, are no longer permitted to be enforced.

4.

CURRENT WORDING: "You do not violate copyright, or other laws"

PROPOSED WORDING: "You do not violate copyright, post illegal content or violate other applicable laws that follow human rights principles."

(emphasis added)

Violating applicable laws that are deemed ^{by whom?} to not "follow human rights principles" will not result in being penalised by the Wikimedia Foundation? I am sure that we can all think of an unjust law or two (or three, or four, or five...) in some country that a business based in the United States for instance would quite reasonably not be interested in aiding in the enforcement of. But beyond that, if in a certain country, the Wikimedia Foundation out in San Francisco disagrees with a law for whatever reason, does the Wikimedia Foundation intend to allow Wikimedia projects in that country to violate said law?

[Moonchild]

"You do not violate copyright, post illegal content or violate other applicable laws that follow human rights principles."

This is an absolute terrible footgun, unless they want to allow users to post content that do not impact human rights. What about animal rights? What about legislation that does not at all deal with human rights issues and principles?
Also... what is "illegal content"? Which rules apply to "illegal" here? In which jurisdiction and under which doctrine? With or without room for agreed exceptions? Applying only to constitutional legality or also to the legality question when there are contract modifications? Whole can of worms there. They should not publish and effect this without a serious legal analysis because this is not enforceable, let alone fair or even-handed. And that's coming from me who is not an attorney -- I'm sure an attorney could find more things wrong there

Also you can make the question if violating any law (without selection or prejudice) would be acceptable, period. I'd say not.

The UCoC ... will end up being used over the long term to penalise users who don't engage in the aforementioned self-censorship.

Absolutely. WikiPedia is supposed to be an informational reference. That reference, like any encyclopaedia, will contain topics and subject matter that some people find "offensive" or "unsafe". You cannot apply this kind of selection to an informational reference that is supposed to contain objective accounts and facts regardless of subject matter, or it will fail as a reference source.

[Moonchild]

P.S.: you can quote me on all that if you want, or borrow it for any reply you send to Wiki* people.

[Mæstro]

The draft code itself is banal. This changes little. Institutions have forked Wikipedia before over ideology: the New World Encyclopedia and Infogalactic are two ready examples, and Wikipedia’s licencing, needful for it to run, enables such forking.

[Moonchild]

the New World Encyclopedia and Infogalactic are two ready examples, and Wikipedia’s licencing, needful for it to run, enables such forking.

Unfortunately neither of those are known. I certainly never heard of them before
But if the ideology is going to get in the way this much then I'll consider swapping the links out on start.palemoon.org to either of those. which is the most actively updated?

[Tharthan]

I would strongly urge you not to do that, Moonchild.

"New World Encyclopedia" is a fork of Wikipedia, but it was devised by the followers of a neo-religion from South Korea called the "Unification Church". Articles have been rewritten to align with the beliefs of that movement.

And as far as I can tell, "Infogalactic" popped up following the Gamergate controversy of 2014. It was started by someone who has been variously described as an anti-Semite, racist, misogynist, and right-wing extremist. The guy describes himself as a "Christian nationalist."

...In other words: if Wikipedia has problems with ideology creeping into the way parts of the site operate, and in the way things are intended to be managed going forward, forks of Wikipedia that have emerged over the past decade such as those are nevertheless significantly worse off in that regard than Wikipedia is.

[Moonchild]

Yeah I looked at both and they are unacceptable. No worries there. I was thinking they were actual, neutral forks but they clearly are not AND are not properly maintained either.

[jobbautista9]

Off-topic:
Huh, I didn't know Infogalactic is supposed to be a Wikipedia fork; I thought it's just another alternative frontend like Wikiwand is

[Mæstro]

I had asked myself whether to mention Infogalactic’s and NWE’s own worldviews in my first post, but decided against it as it was beside my point: that a motivated enough group can fork the site. Need it be said, I endorse neither Korean nor Yankee nationalist-religious cults.

Personally, I would like a Wikipedia fork that has a narrower view of reliable sources, such as preferring primary sources over the press, and a scope that does not result in half the biographies being about sports. Wikipedia’s demand for secondary sources to prove reliability, and its rules for ‘reliable sources’, are responsible for this mess. Wikipedia’s ideas for what counts as neutrality are also disturbing: compare the tone in Wikipedia’s featured article on intelligent design to Encyclopædia Britannica’s or the Columbia Encyclopedia’s.

[BenFenner]

The UCoC ... will end up being used over the long term to penalise users who don't engage in the aforementioned self-censorship.

Absolutely. WikiPedia is supposed to be an informational reference. That reference, like any encyclopaedia, will contain topics and subject matter that some people find "offensive" or "unsafe". You cannot apply this kind of selection to an informational reference that is supposed to contain objective accounts and facts regardless of subject matter, or it will fail as a reference source.

While this may be an outcome, possibly intended, possibly not—I gather the motivation behind these changes were to control what happens "behind the scenes" in edit histories, discussions, etc.
A (misguided?) attempt to keep things civil, again, behind the scenes in edit land, discussion, moderation, etc. Not to directly control content on front-facing pages. I have little worry this is going to mean "offensive" or "unsafe" topics will be censored, removed, or watered down to meet this UCoC and hurt Wikipedia as an informational reference.

That's how I took it anyway. For those who aren't really aware of what goes on behind the scenes, I guess the front-facing articles are what might come to mind when reading this, but I can't imagine those were the targets.

[Moonchild]

I have little worry this is going to mean "offensive" or "unsafe" topics will be censored, removed, or watered down to meet this UCoC and hurt Wikipedia as an informational reference.

Maybe you should worry a little more then. this kind of censoring has already been a thing - with the UCoC being worded as it is, it will simply be justified in writing going forward, so you can expect quite a bit more of it happening.

[moonbat]

I make it a point to never rely on Wikipedia for politics or current news; quickly looking up ancient history or pop culture trivia is fine.

[Tharthan]

I gather the motivation behind these changes were to control what happens "behind the scenes" in edit histories, discussions, etc.

[...]

I have little worry this is going to mean "offensive" or "unsafe" topics will be censored, removed, or watered down to meet this UCoC and hurt Wikipedia as an informational reference.

In fairness, the UCoC needn't directly impact front-facing articles to still have a negative effect for the reader.

(Background)

Articles over which there is little or no controversy more often than not attract editors who are contributing for the purpose of improving the encyclopaedia, and who are therefore trying their best to follow Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. That certainly doesn't mean that those articles never get vandalised, or that disputes and arguments never occur, but such things do happen at a much lower frequency and on a much smaller scale than than they do with articles about controversial subjects.

On the other hand, it is far from uncommon for highly controversial articles in particular to attract editors who desire to have the article reflect a particular perspective. Of course, a controversial article is unlikely to only attract users who share the same perspective. As long as interest in the article isn't lopsided _{(ex. 70% of editors attracted to the article are pushing for view A, 10% of editors attracted to the article are pushing for view B, 5% of editors attracted to the article are pushing for view C, and 15% of editors are putting their own feelings aside—or have no take on the matter—and are working first and foremost on improving the encyclopaedia)} various reliable sources will usually manage to be brought up through the efforts (taken together) of the different factions of editors. And, assuming that all or most of the parties involved are—despite their biases—willing to play by the rules, a reasonable article can still be produced in the end. It's not the ideal situation, certainly; it is always preferable for the vast majority of editors contributing to an article to be doing so with the primary intention of improving the encyclopaedia. But it can hardly be said to be surprising that many people would take advantage of Wikipedia's position in order to attempt to influence the narrative on a subject that is controversial.

However, although Wikipedia policies do not permit behaviours like canvassing, blatantly editing for purposes that are not aligned with the goal of building the encyclopaedia, "Wikilawyering," or treating Wikipedia like a battlefield, all four of those things are sadly easy to find in edit histories and on the discussion pages of highly controversial articles.

Attempts to use Wikipedia's rules and guidelines as "weapons" have occurred in many, many bitter disputes about the content of particularly controversial articles. And disputes can sometimes get so bad that (an) editor(s) sometimes go(es) after specific people (even outside of the article in question) in an effort to get them to go away (either from the article, or from Wikipedia in general) or even in an effort to get them formally blocked or banned.

And rarely, a matter can be so controversial among editors that even an administrator or two is not being entirely impartial. In those cases, selective penalisation can sometimes occur.

Because some disputes get wildly out of hand, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has imposed "active arbitration remedies" on many highly controversial articles. And there have been some controversies in which the Wikimedia Foundation itself has actually gotten involved.

On that note...

There was that one case that happened only a few years ago where the Wikimedia Foundation chose to ban a particular Wikipedia administrator who had been around since early on—a decision that took Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee (and editors more broadly) by surprise. The Wikimedia Foundation said that it had banned the administrator in order to maintain "respect and civility," but the banned administrator said that the charge against them was that they'd had disagreements with the Wikimedia Foundation about certain decisions that it had been making. A second Wikipedia administrator objected to the Wikimedia Foundation's decision, and unbanned the first administrator, saying that the banned administrator didn't deserve the ban. Then, the Wikimedia Foundation banned the first administrator once again and stripped the second administrator of their administrative privileges. A third administrator then came in and unbanned the first administrator again. Eventually, twenty-one administrators resigned in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's decision. In the end, the Wikimedia Foundation relented and left the decision of whether to ban the first administrator up to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.

My point is that, 1. yes, the UCoC is going to certainly have internal effects. As I noted in the original post, users are hardly all convinced that those will be mostly good, but 2. whatever internal effects that they will have might also impact the content of articles, especially if the UCoC is weaponised against certain users in disputes about the particular content of highly controversial articles.

I make it a point to never rely on Wikipedia for politics or current news

That's a good approach to take.

[Moonchild]

I make it a point to never rely on Wikipedia for politics or current news.

That isn't its purpose anyway.
IMO "current events" articles really should not be there. Allowing them has, in part, been the cause of this controversy that has become second nature on WikiPedia.

As an aside, getting Pale Moon listed and maintained has been a constant battle because of the editorial bias on the site. So yeah, it's been a persistent problem for years.

[moonbat]

On the bright side, the Book of Mozilla page lists all the iterations of Pale Moon's version of the Easter egg. I like the initial one from v 24 the best:

The Beast stumbled in the dark for it could no longer see the path. It started to fracture and weaken, trying to reshape itself into the form of metal.
Even the witches would no longer lay eyes upon it, for it had become hideous and twisted.

The soul of the Beast seemed lost forever.

Then, by the full moon's light, a child was born; a child with the unbridled soul of the Beast that would make all others pale in comparison.
— from the Chronicles of the Pale Moon, 24:2

[Mæstro]

quickly looking up ancient history or pop culture trivia is fine.

One of my favourite examples of Wikipedia’s folly has to do with this. Wikipedia claims that Egyptian chariots from the Old Kingdom (third through sixth of Pharaonic Egypt’s thirty dynasties) have been found. It cites a newspaper for this claim, which cites no primary source. The two Egyptologists mentioned in the article, Veldmeijer and Ikram, had published in a 2013 academic conference’s proceedings (Chasing Chariots, p 269) that the chariot concerned ‘cannot date to earlier than the 18th Dynasty’, contradicting the newspaper. I have no idea how the press had botched its report; any Egyptologist would be stunned to hear about an Old Kingdom chariot, for we have no examples from much before the New (which began with the eighteenth), if it were legitimate.

[Eduardo Lucas]

I make it a point to never rely on Wikipedia for politics or current news; quickly looking up ancient history or pop culture trivia is fine.

And never in geopolitics. They are clearly one-sided and some articles have obvious agendas behind them.

[BenFenner]

One of my favourite examples of Wikipedia’s folly has to do with this. Wikipedia claims that Egyptian chariots from the Old Kingdom (third through sixth of Pharaonic Egypt’s thirty dynasties) have been found. It cites a newspaper for this claim, which cites no primary source. The two Egyptologists mentioned in the article, Veldmeijer and Ikram, had published in a 2013 academic conference’s proceedings (Chasing Chariots, p 269) that the chariot concerned ‘cannot date to earlier than the 18th Dynasty’, contradicting the newspaper.

Sounds like a simple enough edit to make, and have it stick. I've done similar in articles. Unless of course this is a pet article of editors with more time and sleazy intentions.
Wouldn't it be nice if there were some sort of universal code of conduct that would control those sleazy editors?
I know I'm being a bit cheeky, but I think we all know how Wikipedia is. It's pretty fucked up, but it kind of always has been, and probably always will be. Luckily, on the whole, it still seems to serve a decent purpose and get the job done in many, many cases. Where not, as usual, one needs to only follow the sources (as you have) to find the "truth" as best is possible (or lack thereof).

[Mæstro]

By the site's own standards, 99% of English Wikipedia articles fail to meet Good Article status or better: such articles as defined ‘[approach but do not equal] the quality of a professional encyclopedia’. The situation is similar in German Wikipedia, where the stated goal is that at least 5‰ of articles should be ‘worth reading’ (lesenswert) and the site achieves about five times this. The implicit admission of Sturgeon's law is welcome. Alas, Wikipedia’s mistakes, such as dependency on the press and its pure vitriol, appear even in articles which pass her own tests for rigour.

[daemonspudguy]

Trust me, you do not want to be associated with InfoGalactic, unless you want to be associated with fucking neo-Nazis.