WMF policy on employee editing

[thekohser]

Thu Apr 17 00:25:18 UTC 2014...

the WMF employee handbook ...any personal editing is not allowed during work hours

-- Victor Grigas, Storyteller for the Wikimedia Foundation

Some hours later...

Thu Apr 17 02:38:02 UTC 2014...

When WMF staff edit the projects...

There are no special WMF policies related to this. It might seem that perhaps there should be, but I have thought about it a lot and I believe it'd be a bad idea.

-- Sue Gardner, Executive Director for the Wikimedia Foundation

So, which is it? Handbook-mandated prohibition, or no special policy? Who is telling the story here, and who is just plain misinformed?

[Malleus]

Storytellers are employed to tell stories I guess, and stories aren't always true. But if I had to choose a side I'd say that Sue Gardner probably didn't even know that there was a WMF Employee Handbook.

[greyed.out.fields]

Storytellers are employed to tell stories I guess, and stories aren't always true. But if I had to choose a side I'd say that Sue Gardner probably didn't even know that there was a WMF Employee Handbook.

If the WMF has a staff storyteller, maybe they should also have a "Spiritual Healer" like Everton F.C. does?

[Poetlister]

the WMF employee handbook ...any personal editing is not allowed during work hours

-- Victor Grigas, Storyteller for the Wikimedia Foundation

If they are editing in article space, improving an article, it must be furthering the aims of the WMF so is presumably allowed. Same with !voting in an AfD. I can see that say !voting in an RfA would be wrong.

[Malleus]

the WMF employee handbook ...any personal editing is not allowed during work hours

-- Victor Grigas, Storyteller for the Wikimedia Foundation

If they are editing in article space, improving an article, it must be furthering the aims of the WMF so is presumably allowed. Same with !voting in an AfD. I can see that say !voting in an RfA would be wrong.

That's dangerous ground though, as the WMF can no longer claim to be merely hosting content if its employess are creating it during work hours.

[thekohser]

That's dangerous ground though, as the WMF can no longer claim to be merely hosting content if its employess are creating it during work hours.

Kelly Martin may be along shortly to explain, but just because employees edit content on a site during working hours, doesn't remove Section 230 immunity from the libelous, defamatory, or discriminatory nature of content that is added by non-employees. As long as the WMF isn't willfully encouraging or inviting libel, defamation, or discrimination, then Section 230 is untouched by the scenario you (wrongly) describe as "dangerous".

[Jim]

Storytellers are employed to tell stories I guess, and stories aren't always true. But if I had to choose a side I'd say that Sue Gardner probably didn't even know that there was a WMF Employee Handbook.

If the WMF has a staff storyteller, maybe they should also have a "Spiritual Healer" like Everton F.C. does?

--Interlude--

I could do the storyteller gig.

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, a great man was interrupted in his ruminations on how to make his soft porn site more popular, by one of his soothsayers:
"I have a dream", said the soothsayer, "that we could make a great online encyclopedia with this new software I found."
"Oh, it's you." said the great man, reluctantly pushing aside his pile of centerfolds, "Ok - how does it work?"
"Well, anyone can edit it, and add whatever they want, and, er, that's it really...", the soothsayer enthused.
"Oh, ok", said the great man, "sounds stupid to me, but we have oodles of server space - set it up and let me know if it goes anywhere. Now, where was I? Oh, yes, September - cute..."
"We could call it Wikipedia", the soothsayer suggested.
"Are you still here?", the great man replied.

And so it came to pass that the "Wikipedia" did flourish and prosper, and the great man did rub together his hands and smile.
"Bring me the soothsayer", he commanded.

And the soothsayer was brought.

"So, this wikipedia thing I told you to do is doing pretty well, huh? Great idea of mine. How can we make money with it?", the great man asked.
"Er... It was my idea, actually...", ventured the soothsayer.

And with that the great man flew into a great rage, the like of which had not been seen since the last great rage: "Begone, heathen", he roared, and the soothsayer was cast out of the kingdom, destitute.

And everyone lived thoughtfully ever after.

--sorry, but "storyteller"? they need lyrical poets too... --

We now return you to your regular fisticuffs, News at 11.

[Kelly Martin]

That's dangerous ground though, as the WMF can no longer claim to be merely hosting content if its employess are creating it during work hours.

Kelly Martin may be along shortly to explain, but just because employees edit content on a site during working hours, doesn't remove Section 230 immunity from the libelous, defamatory, or discriminatory nature of content that is added by non-employees. As long as the WMF isn't willfully encouraging or inviting libel, defamation, or discrimination, then Section 230 is untouched by the scenario you (wrongly) describe as "dangerous".

Greg's correct. While Section 230 immunity doesn't apply to material actually published by employees (or other agents) in the course of their duties, the fact that employees use a provider to publish content either in the course of their duties or as "on-the-job recreation" does not void Section 230 immunity for anything other than that particular material. Furthermore, Section 230 immunity may still apply to content which was originally published by a nonagent and then subsequently reviewed by an agent either prior to or after actual publication, if such review comprises a reasonable effort to moderate content provided by nonagents (thus, a publisher may hire "moderators" without breaching its immunity). I'm not aware of any case law that allows for breaching the immunity even if such moderation is "negligent", although I wouldn't rule that out as a possibility.

There's may be difficulty at times in deciding whether an edit on Wikipedia is "publication" versus "moderation", but a court is likely to apply a common-sense standard in such cases, and furthermore give the benefit of the doubt to the publisher. It's very hard to breach Section 230.

[Kelly Martin]

Unfortunately, as Greg has tried to point out to you, the courts have so far elected to extend "Section 230 immunity" much farther than it was ever intended by the original legislation

I have to disagree with you there. The courts are interpreting Section 230's immunity about as broadly as Congress intended. This is fairly clear from reading the legislative history of the bill, or at least what I recall of what I found when I researched this quite extensively around 2006.

[Midsize Jake]

The courts are interpreting Section 230's immunity about as broadly as Congress intended. This is fairly clear from reading the legislative history of the bill, or at least what I recall of what I found when I researched this quite extensively around 2006.

Absolutely correct, but it's not the immunity itself that's being over-broadly interpreted, it's the definition of who qualifies as a "service provider." When the law was written, most people in Congress (who have always been technologically-challenged to say the least) probably never imagined anything like Wikipedia would, or could, ever exist. It was therefore the courts, not Congress, who later decided that online publishing platforms should be treated as service providers under the definition.

I'll freely admit though that trying to gauge Congressional "intent" is nearly always a crap-shoot, because people can always go back and say, "sure, we meant to do that," sort of like the bike-flip scene in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. It's just hard for me to believe that they were that forward-looking, given what we know about their levels of general intelligence and imagination.

Anyway... there's enough case law in place now that a complete judicial overturn is exceptionally unlikely, but I did say "theoretically" there.

[lilburne]

Anyway... there's enough case law in place now that a complete judicial overturn is exceptionally unlikely, but I did say "theoretically" there.

There are other courts that bypass legislators.

[tarantino]

Hehe, chief weirdo for the wikimedia foundation says1 to Fæ:

You tend to join these types of threads with cheerful and seemingly
limitless energy to attempt to whip up tiny shitstorms. This has
turned far too many conversations into the Fae/Russavia traveling
circus, with both of you demanding individual explanations from the
Board for why someone pooped.

Where have I heard that phrase before? Oh yeah, here.

1 What other organization would condone an employee speaking that way to someone in public?

edit:fixed link

[Randy from Boise]

Be my guest, there's very little that's of any further interest to me here anyway. This site is well past its sell-buy date.

Malleus, you wrote "the WMF can no longer claim to be merely hosting content if its employess [sic] are creating it during work hours." You were simply incorrect; you should have written "the WMF can no longer honestly claim to be merely hosting content if its employees are creating it during work hours." They can, and will, always resort to their longstanding disingenuous claims that their employees have "hats" that they can take on and off at will, as if "regular editors" are going to treat them differently because they're wearing a different "hat" that they can't actually see them wearing. This is not an issue that just came up; they've always done this and will keep doing it until a judge, jury, properly-worded law, or constitutional amendment stops them.

Actually, if I understand Jimmy Wales right, they don't need to contrive any such pretext: if they have employees doing one thing, they may well be responsible for what those employees write or do, but that does not mean that WMF forfeits Section 230 coverage over what random editors do on the rest of the site. Wales was very emphatic about this. I'm not a lawyer to judge if his interpretation is right or wrong.

RfB

[lonza leggiera]

Hehe, chief weirdo for the wikimedia foundation says1 to Fæ/quote] I suspect the link you intended to give here was this one.

You tend to join these types of threads with cheerful and seemingly
limitless energy to attempt to whip up tiny shitstorms. This has
turned far too many conversations into the Fae/Russavia traveling
circus, with both of you demanding individual explanations from the
Board for why someone pooped.

Where have I heard that phrase before? Oh yeah, here.

1 What other organization would condone an employee speaking that way to someone in public?

[Cla68]

Hehe, chief weirdo for the wikimedia foundation says1 to Fæ:

You tend to join these types of threads with cheerful and seemingly
limitless energy to attempt to whip up tiny shitstorms. This has
turned far too many conversations into the Fae/Russavia traveling
circus, with both of you demanding individual explanations from the
Board for why someone pooped.

Where have I heard that phrase before? Oh yeah, here.

1 What other organization would condone an employee speaking that way to someone in public?

edit:fixed link

Mr. Moller appears to be getting a little defensive. He must have read the recent Daily Dot story shortly before responding in that thread.

[Midsize Jake]

Actually, if I understand Jimmy Wales right, they don't need to contrive any such pretext: if they have employees doing one thing, they may well be responsible for what those employees write or do, but that does not mean that WMF forfeits Section 230 coverage over what random editors do on the rest of the site. Wales was very emphatic about this. I'm not a lawyer to judge if his interpretation is right or wrong.

Whatever. My point is only that this (including what Jimbo is insisting upon) is based on judicial interpretation of the law; it's not codified in the law itself. And the strength of such interpretations tends to be inversely proportional to the egregiousness of any given future offense and, by extension, the strength of the resulting future complaint. It might take something as unlikely as an attractive white teenage girl committing suicide over a Wikipedia edit made by someone with WMF credentials, followed by a huge ongoing media bonanza over the case, but something like that is not impossible. I mean, David Gerard still exists, right?

And again, lawyers are barely any more qualified than you or me to predict the future, or even what would happen in the unlikely event that someone with a really, really strong case with maximum media appeal decides to sue the WMF. Sometimes it's just a question of venue, or which judge is assigned to it. Nobody will know until it happens.

[Zoloft]

If anyone is wondering where the argument went, you want room 12A, just along the corridor.

Otherwise, post a reply right below this.

Go on, you know you want to!

[Kumioko]

I think everyone is blowing that policy a little out of proportion for a couple reasons. First, the majority of the employees at the WMF have never done one edit. They have absolutely no idea what the culture is, the policy, the community, nothing. Secondly, of the few who do edit, several focus on very specific areas like Copyright or building applications or bots. It would be fairly easy though to look at the San Francisco time and associate edits to accounts for Maggie Dennis (Moonridengirl), Erik Mohler (Eloquence), Anomie, Reedy boy, Rjwilmsi, Whatamidoing, or a couple others. I would pretty much bet they do at least occasional edits from work and that would be extremely easy to see. So the policy is most likely just a CYA policy for the WMF in case someone complains or tries to sue for something.

[enwikibadscience]

the WMF employee handbook ...any personal editing is not allowed during work hours

-- Victor Grigas, Storyteller for the Wikimedia Foundation

If they are editing in article space, improving an article, it must be furthering the aims of the WMF so is presumably allowed. Same with !voting in an AfD. I can see that say !voting in an RfA would be wrong.

But they would be being paid while editing so is presumably not allowed.

Inaccuracies even rule their policies!

[Kumioko]

Thats a really good point. In fact, depending on the interpretation of that, even the accounts ending in WMF are "paid" editors. But then again, the Campus ambassador program is paid editing too. They just get grades for editing instead of tangible currency.

[Jim]

Thats a really good point. In fact, depending on the interpretation of that, even the accounts ending in WMF are "paid" editors. But then again, the Campus ambassador program is paid editing too. They just get grades for editing instead of tangible currency.

The "ins and outs" of this can be argued till the metaphorical cows come home. In fact, that's exactly what the involved parties would love you to do - argue, while they give a nice "Cow tea party" elsewhere.
The reality is apparent to anyone who looks - COI editing is fine if you share the "I", horrible if you don't.
This will ever be so. Anywhere you look.
Except Utopia - send me an invite when you arrive there. I'll bring beer.

[enwikibadscience]

Thats a really good point. In fact, depending on the interpretation of that, even the accounts ending in WMF are "paid" editors. But then again, the Campus ambassador program is paid editing too. They just get grades for editing instead of tangible currency.

The "ins and outs" of this can be argued till the metaphorical cows come home. In fact, that's exactly what the involved parties would love you to do - argue, while they give a nice "Cow tea party" elsewhere.
The reality is apparent to anyone who looks - COI editing is fine if you share the "I", horrible if you don't.
This will ever be so. Anywhere you look.
Except Utopia - send me an invite when you arrive there. I'll bring beer.

True with everything on en.Wikipedia.

[Jim]

True with everything on en.Wikipedia.

True, but "Drop the Dead Donkey (T-H-L)"

please...

[Kumioko]

Those points are all true, but a major point of this site is to bring those things to light. Most of the stuff we talk about here will never change, but every discussion raises awareness and pushes Wikipedia to its inevitable death a little faster.

[Jim]

Those points are all true, but a major point of this site is to bring those things to light. Most of the stuff we talk about here will never change, but every discussion raises awareness and pushes Wikipedia to its inevitable death a little faster.

Yeah but repetition sometimes makes people ignore you, sorry, I meant to say repetition sometimes makes people ignore you, but just when I was about to say repetition sometimes makes people ignore you, I forgot, and said repetition sometimes makes people ignore you. My error. Shall I try to say it again, or would you rather ignore me?

You mean well, Kumioko, but you don't half go on, ad boredum.

[enwikibadscience]

True with everything on en.Wikipedia.

True, but "Drop the Dead Donkey (T-H-L)"

please...

"The truth, sadly, is that the writers made it up."

I hope that's true.

Thank you.

[enwikibadscience]

Those points are all true, but a major point of this site is to bring those things to light. Most of the stuff we talk about here will never change, but every discussion raises awareness and pushes Wikipedia to its inevitable death a little faster.

Yeah but repetition sometimes makes people ignore you, sorry, I meant to say repetition sometimes makes people ignore you, but just when I was about to say repetition sometimes makes people ignore you, I forgot, and said repetition sometimes makes people ignore you. My error. Shall I try to say it again, or would you rather ignore me?

You mean well, Kumioko, but you don't half go on, ad boredum.

I think part of Wikipediocracy must keep the same topics in the threads, because it's not as if en.Wikipedia is improving. In fact, I think my dead horse is showing it is getting worse. New readers here should be informed.

[Jim]

True with everything on en.Wikipedia.

True, but "Drop the Dead Donkey (T-H-L)"

please...

"The truth, sadly, is that the writers made it up."

I hope that's true.

Thank you.

You're very welcome. And well done for not getting blocked. You'll never change it but you caused an "ooh, WTF" ripple. More power you.

But drop the bloody horse. I beg you.

[Kumioko]

I agree it is getting worse. Its like the Dead horse that is Wikipedia is also attracting rats, and those rats are carrying the plague. The plague shall spread to the population and the population will blame the witches, they will gather all the women and accuse them of witchcraft and then the population will decline because less children are born. Its a viscious cycle.

[Zoloft]

If anyone is wondering where the argument went, you want room 12A, just along the corridor.

Otherwise, post a reply right below this.

Go on, you know you want to!

I have unlocked the above argument topic. Post crap there. Post crap here, I will put you in the penalty box.

[enwikibadscience]

True with everything on en.Wikipedia.

True, but "Drop the Dead Donkey (T-H-L)"

please...

"The truth, sadly, is that the writers made it up."

I hope that's true.

Thank you.

You're very welcome. And well done for not getting blocked. You'll never change it but you caused an "ooh, WTF" ripple. More power you.

But drop the bloody horse. I beg you.

I don't think I will.



I didn't really do anything to not get blocked though. Blocking me would be better for Wikipediocracy, but many think it would be better for Wikipedia. Certainly would be for the Wikipedia that is, but hard to justify for the Wikipedia it pretends it is.