User talk:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules

Pharma

I have had cases where a couple of companies were secretly and aggressively editing Wikipedia to make their products look more positive. These edits were not inline with the best available evidence. Sounds like this may be against the law (which is good).

Have also had a company try to promote a "new disease" on Wikipedia. They did state who they were. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Small, did you want me to edit boldly here (since it's just in userspace anyway) or are just my comments enough? Doc James,

Go ahead and boldly edit, and I'll feel free to boldly change your edits. I'll feel especially free since I do expect some vandalism (obviously not from you) which is why this is in user space

One area that might be especially difficult is the My Guess: reading - this is only a very general interpretation, though I think it necessary to keep the conversation within reasonable bounds. I suppose an alternative Guess might be appropriate, but I won't hesitate to remove bizarre interpretations or Wikilawyering - it's not about our rules, it's about how to interpret the FTC rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Smallbones. I just started punching some stuff in, but it's passed 1 a.m. and I am dosing off. I should be able to circle back and contribute more thoroughly by Mon/Tues at the latest. CorporateM (Talk) 06:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have found that I am even more likely than usual not to do work for pharma companies than for others. Their articles are better maintained by Wikiproject Medicine than most company pages, they have a reputation for misleading marketing practices, etc. etc. Though I do have a COI with Invisalign (haven't made any contributions yet), which is a medical product. user:DGG warned me a long time ago that most medical articles are pretty well-maintained, so there are less legitimate reasons for companies in that sector to participate and I find that to be mostly true. CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

We try to maintain them to the best of our ability. Lots to do though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The articles that small or new companies in this field submit, or are submitted for them, are a major problem. They contain all the usual puffery and have the usual lack of substantial independent references, but in addition if they are selling new or unregulated products they certainly have the problem of making unjustifiable claims. (There is a problem that if the company is notable, whatever it claims to do needs to be mentioned, but it needs to be mentioned in context with a neutral POV.--I find avery short quote usually takes care of it) When they are selling a knock-off or variation of an accepted product, they tend to contain an extensive section about the general products, or the disease, or other condition--these sections are usually best handled by replacing the entire section with a wikilink.

There's a particular problem I find myself often dealing with, and I need advice: what is the notability of products that are still in development? I think it's obvious that we would report those in publicized stage II and III trials, because there is legitimate public interest and usable sources. But what about drugs under development that have not reached stage I? Anything said about the human effect will be speculative, and anything said about lab animals or in vitro needs to be prominently specified as such. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Tone and advocacy

I am going to do a complete 180 from what I told Smallbones on my Talk page. I think those comments were overly generic and representative of my general frustration with the development and practice of political factions on Wikipedia that lobby the community for their point-of-view regarding conflict of interest. If this document is intended for presentation to the FTC directly, and not as a permanent Wikipedia document, than I think the document should be a piece of advocacy.

It should not advocate for a point-of-view that will not likely be supported by the overwhelming majority of editors, but it should advocate that (a) this issue falls within their scope/responsibilities and (b) it is a topic worth their attention, time and resources as the FTC would have to be convinced of these two things before they can be expected to provide a response to the questions. CorporateM (Talk) 20:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions

Hi Smallbones, thanks for putting this together. Is the idea to present the FTC with real examples, and should we be looking for examples that might violate their rules? Or should examples be expressed in general terms? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the structure of the first section [1] and removed the guesses. I did this on the assumption that this is for the FTC, in which case the guesses would seem superfluous, but if it's for the community the guesses would be helpful, so please feel free to revert. (I edited it rather than making suggestions here only because it's easier to show than tell.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions. It looks like this is evolving in a good direction, I may still look back to my original view.

I DON'T think that the FTC would answer questions on specific cases, these are meant to be examples, but I think that general examples can carry the weight. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

So the plan is to send this to the FTC, is that right, and ask for a ruling? I'm not familiar with how this works, so any clarification would be helpful in terms of knowing what to look for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty comfortable with the current document. The I added was just a reminder for me to get the ref.

"ask for a ruling" sounds much too formal, it's more like "public comments are welcome" except that the asked for questions and said that they would address the most common ones (the next time they get around to it).

There's a few ways we could take this forward

• Start an RfC to see if we want to send this as the Wikipedia Community - which might have a greater weight
• Have it in the form of a petition with editors signing at the bottom
• Encourage individuals to send the questions individually, or to ask their own questions

Any other ideas? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest boiling it down to one or two questions about the most common situations, short and sweet, and having a small number of editors sign it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll suggest questions A,C,D, and E. Other editors should give their own choices. I'll contact folks tomorrow, others should contact whomever they think is interested. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I've removed B. I wonder about this one:

Would it make any difference if the restaurant owner (or employee/contractor) attempted to write an unbiased review of the restaurant? (e.g. a hired search engine optimization (SEO) firm just wants to push a different website lower in a Google search?)

This speaks to subjective mental state (intention to be unbiased), which is impossible to measure, even for the subject. I wonder if this complicates the series of questions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the SEO question is ultimately about a mental state. I'm pretty sure that the FTC would come out and say that mental state doesn't matter. I'd also think that, by Wikipedia rules, the SEO argument is the most defensible objection to restricting paid editing - the article is NPOV isn't it (or at least you can't prove otherwise)?

I think that I'll remove the medical examples. They are interesting fine points, but they would likely be taken care of sensibly it the other examples are taken care of sensibly. Of course individuals can send their own questions to the FTC. Maybe I'll put these in a separate section "Other questions considered" that we don't send to the FTC.

Which brings up the question of how we sign the request. I guess we just put our Wiki-signatures on it ~~~~ and I send it off. I'll also remove the material at the top intended for Wikipedians, and perhaps go into more detail on things like why you can't put a disclosure in an article page (that the FTC might not know). In short I'll set this up as

• Intro to the page for Wikipedians
• The actual e-mail that I'll send to the FTC, with spaces for signatures
• Other things we considered/ what you can do if you didn't sign. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones pinged me back here. In my opinion, any real-world examples should not be shared here, as it would violate "no legal threats," however, specific hypothetical examples may be useful over broad strokes. This is how the FTC formats its own guides by making up scenarios.

I think the way I would approach this is to get editors to sign it like a petition and pitch the story to the media that the Wikipedia community is demanding answers from the FTC. We should not load it with any guesses, but rather insist the FTC provide answers. Just an email will disappear into the abyss.

I think the document in its entirety should be a letter that editors can sign to show their support with a summary at the top for editors to understand what's going on. CorporateM (Talk) 16:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I made some pretty bold edits along the lines of the above. I would like to let it settle-out and see how the dust settles as other editors take a look. I am starting to wonder if we should really ask "questions" or if there is something more direct we can ask of the FTC. What do we want them to do? It seems unlikely that they will actually provide a satisfying answer to the questions. CorporateM (Talk) 17:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I changed the facts that were quoted from DiStaso and ask a followup on non-profits. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Going forward

CorporateM is correct that "Just an email (may) disappear into the abyss." I think if we don't at least ask, then they may avoid ever clarifying these matters because they are too difficult or unusual. Publicizing this petition is certainly one way to increase the chance that it will be answered. A few ideas on where to publicize:

1. personal messages to everybody you think might want to sign.
2. within the community (e.g. on Jimbo's talk page, WT:COI, Village Pump)
3. The Signpost
4. With outside media

I do know of one legal scholar/blogger who might have an interest in this.

Suggested next steps

• get 5-6 editors who are willing to declare a "final version" and sign off on it.
• wait a week to give other editors a chance to sign
• send it off

Other ideas welcome. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important that the editors who sign are not involved in paid editing; otherwise it will look as though it's the PR industry that is asking the FTC for clarification. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would think it would be important that it IS signed by prominent members of the marketing community, such as trade associations, to show that marketers are also asking for clarification. However, realistically, I cannot think of an industry that welcomes such regulation and scrutiny so it's probably completely unrealistic. "Self regulation" is a popular reference in business. CorporateM (Talk) 02:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be an extremely bad idea. If PR people want to ask for clarification they can do that separately.

I'm pinging Coretheapple in case he hasn't seen this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. (I did not even know that one could ping, so this is good to know.) I'm not acquainted with what Smallbones has proposed here. I'll have to read up on it. Coretheapple (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea and I certainly don't mind getting involved I guess, but shouldn't the Wikimedia Foundation be initiating it through its general counsel? Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved. The question whether the WMF should do this is interesting. Ideally they should do it, or the Wikipedia Community as a whole should do it, but we don't live in an ideal world. We can only do what we think best in non-ideal circumstances. I can only speculate on why the WMF doesn't do this themselves - perhaps there is some division on the matter within the Board; perhaps they don't realize how serious the matter is; perhaps there is some quirk of non-profit law that prevents them from doing it (e.g. no "regulatory lobbying"), perhaps something else that I can't even imagine. I do know however, that WMF counsel represents the Foundation as a legal entity, they do not represent Wikipedia editors, and that we have rights to think and act on our own. I'll ping Geoffbrigham just in case he wants to say something, but my guess is that he is very constrained in what he can say, and may prefer to say nothing at all. Being a lawyer must be rough! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest also that you raise this specifically with Jimbo Wales and Susan Gardner, if you haven't already done so, as well as any members of the WMF board who are on Wikipedia. That way they can't deny that they knew about it! Coretheapple (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The FTC is discussing this already

Hello, the term for which to search is "native advertising". The idea is that within an information source, like a newspaper, there can be paid content which seems like native content. The new regulations about are being formed because in a newspaper, it is very easy for a human to detect where ads begin even when the ad is presented as an article. I have no example at hand, but I could find one, and I hope everyone here knows what I am describing. The change is that on the Internet, articles cannot be tagged with "paid advertising" disclaimers in the same way, so to the extent that the FTC has regulated native advertising in print media, presumably it should also be regulating Internet media. Currently Internet media regulations are not in place to the same extent.

Last month in DC there was a conference on this called "Blurred Lines". I knew a bit about this but did not attend, even though I am interested in the topic. I cannot recommend anything in particular from this conference, but four hours of video presentations are available.

If we are to write to the FTC, then probably we should be using their terms "sponsored content" and "native advertising" in our request. Also, it might not hurt to get opinions from individuals interested in this, such as from the conference bios page.

Thanks to everyone else participating in this - it seems timely. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Native advertising is obviously closely related to this, but I think that their current dot com disclosure and endorsement rules pretty much cover what we need now. "Blurred lines" is an apt metaphor. I hope nobody will think I'm putting down the PR folks, but blurred lines and spin seem to be a regular part of their toolkit. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Relevant guideline

• Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (already posted to proposal page in lede)

relevant passage

§ 255.5 Disclosure of material connections. 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. For example, when an endorser who appears in a television commercial is neither represented in the advertisement as an expert nor is known to a significant portion of the viewing public, then the advertiser should clearly and conspicuously disclose either the payment or promise of compensation prior to and in exchange for the endorsement or the fact that the endorser knew or had reason to know or to believe that if the endorsement favored the advertised product some benefit, such as an appearance on television, would be extended to the endorser. Additional guidance, including guidance concerning endorsements made through other media, is provided by the examples below. Example 1: A drug company commissions research on its product by an outside organization. The drug company determines the overall subject of the research (e.g., to test the efficacy of a newly developed product) and pays a substantial share of the expenses of the research project, but the research organization determines the protocol for the study and is responsible for conducting it. A subsequent advertisement by the drug company mentions the research results as the “findings” of that research organization. Although the design and conduct of the research project are controlled by the outside research organization, the weight consumers place on the reported results could be materially affected by knowing that the advertiser had funded the project. Therefore, the advertiser’s payment of expenses to the research organization should be disclosed in this advertisement. Example 2: A film star endorses a particular food product. The endorsement regards only points of taste and individual preference. This endorsement must, of course, comply with § 255.1; but regardless of whether the star’s compensation for the commercial is a $1 million cash payment or a royalty for each product sold by the advertiser during the next year, no disclosure is required because such payments likely are ordinarily expected by viewers. Example 3: During an appearance by a well-known professional tennis player on a television talk show, the host comments that the past few months have been the best of her career and during this time she has risen to her highest level ever in the rankings. She responds by attributing the improvement in her game to the fact that she is seeing the ball better than she used to, ever since having laser vision correction surgery at a clinic that she identifies by name. She continues talking about the ease of the procedure, the kindness of the clinic’s doctors, her speedy recovery, and how she can now engage in a variety of activities without glasses, including driving at night. The athlete does not disclose that, even though she does not appear in commercials for the clinic, she has a contractual relationship with it, and her contract pays her for speaking publicly about her surgery when she can do so. Consumers might not realize that a celebrity discussing a medical procedure in a television interview has been paid for doing so, and knowledge of such payments would likely affect the weight or credibility consumers give to the celebrity’s endorsement. Without a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the athlete has been engaged as a spokesperson for the clinic, this endorsement is likely to be deceptive. Furthermore, if consumers are likely to take away from her story that her experience was typical of those who undergo the same procedure at the clinic, the advertiser must have substantiation for that claim. Assume that instead of speaking about the clinic in a television interview, the tennis player touts the results of her surgery – mentioning the clinic by name – on a social networking site that allows her fans to read in real time what is happening in her life. Given the nature of the medium in which her endorsement is disseminated, consumers might not realize that she is a paid endorser. Because that information might affect the weight consumers give to her endorsement, her relationship with the clinic should be disclosed. Assume that during that same television interview, the tennis player is wearing clothes bearing the insignia of an athletic wear company with whom she also has an endorsement contract. Although this contract requires that she wear the company’s clothes not only on the court but also in public appearances, when possible, she does not mention them or the company during her appearance on the show. No disclosure is required because no representation is being made about the clothes in this context. Example 4: An ad for an anti-snoring product features a physician who says that he has seen dozens of products come on the market over the years and, in his opinion, this is the best ever. Consumers would expect the physician to be reasonably compensated for his appearance in the ad. Consumers are unlikely, however, to expect that the physician receives a percentage of gross product sales or that he owns part of the company, and either of these facts would likely materially affect the credibility that consumers attach to the endorsement. Accordingly, the advertisement should clearly and conspicuously disclose such a connection between the company and the physician. Example 5: An actual patron of a restaurant, who is neither known to the public nor presented as an expert, is shown seated at the counter. He is asked for his “spontaneous” opinion of a new food product served in the restaurant. Assume, first, that the advertiser had posted a sign on the door of the restaurant informing all who entered that day that patrons would be interviewed by the advertiser as part of its TV promotion of its new soy protein “steak.” This notification would materially affect the weight or credibility of the patron’s endorsement, and, therefore, viewers of the advertisement should be clearly and conspicuously informed of the circumstances under which the endorsement was obtained. Assume, in the alternative, that the advertiser had not posted a sign on the door of the restaurant, but had informed all interviewed customers of the “hidden camera” only after interviews were completed and the customers had no reason to know or believe that their response was being recorded for use in an advertisement. Even if patrons were also told that they would be paid for allowing the use of their opinions in advertising, these facts need not be disclosed. Example 6: An infomercial producer wants to include consumer endorsements for an automotive additive product featured in her commercial, but because the product has not yet been sold, there are no consumer users. The producer’s staff reviews the profiles of individuals interested in working as “extras” in commercials and identifies several who are interested in automobiles. The extras are asked to use the product for several weeks and then report back to the producer. They are told that if they are selected to endorse the product in the producer’s infomercial, they will receive a small payment. Viewers would not expect that these “consumer endorsers” are actors who were asked to use the product so that they could appear in the commercial or that they were compensated. Because the advertisement fails to disclose these facts, it is deceptive. Example 7: A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert maintains a personal weblog or “blog” where he posts entries about his gaming experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game hardware and software. As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on his blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review. Because his review is disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious, readers are unlikely to know that he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact likely would materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge. The manufacturer should advise him at the time it provides the gaming system that this connection should be disclosed, and it should have procedures in place to try to monitor his postings for compliance. Example 8: An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices. Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer’s product. Knowledge of this poster’s employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board. Example 9: A young man signs up to be part of a “street team” program in which points are awarded each time a team member talks to his or her friends about a particular advertiser’s products. Team members can then exchange their points for prizes, such as concert tickets or electronics. These incentives would materially affect the weight or credibility of the team member’s endorsements. They should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, and the advertiser should take steps to ensure that these disclosures are being provided. § 255.4 Endorsements by organizations. Endorsements by organizations, especially expert ones, are viewed as representing the judgment of a group whose collective experience exceeds that of any individual member, and whose judgments are generally free of the sort of subjective factors that vary from individual to individual. Therefore, an organization’s endorsement must be reached by a process sufficient to ensure that the endorsement fairly reflects the collective judgment of the organization. Moreover, if an organization is represented as being expert, then, in conjunction with a proper exercise of its expertise in evaluating the product under § 255.3 (expert endorsements), it must utilize an expert or experts recognized as such by the organization or standards previously adopted by the organization and suitable for judging the relevant merits of such products. [See § 255.1(d) regarding the liability of endorsers.] Example: A mattress seller advertises that its product is endorsed by a chiropractic association. Because the association would be regarded as expert with respect to judging mattresses, its endorsement must be supported by an evaluation by an expert or experts recognized as such by the organization, or by compliance with standards previously adopted by the organization and aimed at measuring the performance of mattresses in general and not designed with the unique features of the advertised mattress in mind.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• uhem, PR guy pops in with a free consultation. "Native advertising" IMO is just a new word for something very old. Some of the first issues the FTC addressed were related to ads that masqueraded as independent news in much the same way. The difference is only that it is online rather than in a print or broadcast media. However, since it is a hot buzzword and marketers are talking about it alot, if you use the term as a "hook", your media throughput may be increased substantially, if that is the intention that is. It would probably also get more attention from the FTC and/or marketers, since it is a topic of interest atm from both parties. CorporateM (Talk) 02:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What do we want from the FTC?

I think the page could benefit by figuring out exactly what should be asked of the FTC. Asking them to sit down and fill out a Q&A seems awkward. Perhaps what should be requested is for better legal remedies, or for them to make a statement, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 02:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the poor edit-summary saying it was a copyedit (made other copyedits and forgot about this change). I changed the nature of the request to "clarify how marketers and Wikipedians can comply with the FTC rules on undisclosed advertising." Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 02:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, this is a request to help editors, not PR people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think what we want is a clear reading of how the FTC rules apply to Wikipedia. Asking for better legal remedies is likely not possible in the short-term. In the long-term it might have to go through congress, which is the really, really long-term. Once there is a clear statement, much of it would be almost self-enforcing. I'm sure that the WMF and the large majority of editors want to follow the law. It might even be as simple as including a single sentence in WP:NOT

I have mixed feelings about CorpM signing. He understands most of these rules very well, but I think he confuses some of it and complicates it in the end. We should be trying to represent all good faith editors, and I'm sure he is one. But if we invite all PR editors in to comment and contribute to the writing, we'll probably get a real mess. Why not - anybody who wants to sign can sign?

What about the next steps? Perhaps we should each invite 3-4 people to review, but we probably can't add more text. When 6 are willing to sign off, we have our final text. Then do we advertise to the general editorship for more signatures? Do we want to send this to the media as well as sending it to the FTC? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need more signatures or need this to come from the community as such. All we need is for the query to reach the FTC and to be read; the latter will be harder than the former. I'm not sure about the media; I would say not, but I'll leave that to others. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Slimvirgin I am hopeful that we will have a good outcome and that it will not be hard. There is an organization called MuckRock which has pioneered a process of sending open letters to government for FOIA requests. I think that we should follow parts of their model. They email the request, but make it an open letter also, and they track communication. I have thought about making all kinds of open letter requests on Wikipedia to all kinds of organizations for information of all sorts. When we do this, either they reply, they fail to reply, or a timestamped letter sits unanswered. Getting any of those three responses is more beneficial to this community than not asking at all, and I think we will all have a positive experience just by asking. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The open letter in the style of MuckRock seems interesting. Where would we post the information on when the e-mail was sent and answered? Maybe on the User page? It would have to be labelled "Open letter" so that we're not ambushing them, in which case it would be necessary to make it a truly open letter - i.e. publish it at least within Wikipedia.

BTW, I'll revert the "To what extent does..." prefix on all the questions, since I don't see it adding much beyond words. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

About the "To what extent" - it is my expectation that the answer received in reply will be direct. I would expect that any answers to these questions will be phrased to respond to the question, not the intent. I make it a point never to ask yes/no questions unless it is my wish that the respondent say no more than that. I do think that it would be useful to ask at least one question which requests more than a single word answer. I have no strong opinion about this, and it might be the intent of this request to get one-word answers, but if the hope is to get more than that, then I feel it is best to ask for it directly rather than depend on anyone sharing anything beyond what is requested.

I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharing a couple of months ago with the intent to set guidelines for making open letter requests of external organizations. I have more notes elsewhere related to requesting data from other kinds of organizations which I would share semi-privately with anyone who talked with me, but I do not have more to share openly at this time. ProPublica does this sort of thing often as well.

I imagine that all open letters would uploaded as a document to Commons, then emailed, then noted at a WikiProject for managing open letters, then noted at WikiProjects with relevant subject matter interest, then noted on Wikipedia article or work space talk pages which are hosting stakeholders. The primary host space for the request would likely be a designated Wikipedia: page for the request. I would support moving this page and discussion out of the Smallbones user space and into public space, because right now, Smallbones sort of has the right to request deletion of this per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#U1._User_request but this is not his own project and it has project-wide implications. We are proposing to serve the traditional role of public relations staff, and this is a sort of lobbying and advocacy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's probably better to leave it in user space and just send it as a query from a group of volunteers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Why? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It'll become too bogged down otherwise. It's just a group of individual volunteers asking for guidance; to try to make it a formal thing will involve extra work for no obvious benefit. The examples we give either are or aren't violations of FTC rules, whether the question is asked informally by one person or more formally on behalf of thousands. Now, whether a formal approach would be more likely to get a response is another matter, but it's not clear to me that it would. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

These are excellent reasons. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward 3

Yes, I put this on a user page so that it wouldn't get bogged down in Wiki procedure. I did reserve the right to delete vandalism, because I expected some otherwise. No, I won't request that this page be deleted. I probably have been a bit forward at times because I'm determined to get some outcome here - at the minimum I or we are going to request public answers to some questions that obviously need to be addressed.

The input is very much appreciated and has improved the letter immensely. I put one "To what extent..." back in, I also expressly asked for a public reply and included https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallbones/Questions_on_FTC_rules to let them know this is an open letter at least to the extent that it appears on a publicly open website.

Unless there is a general outcry, I'll suggest any changes to the letter be made within 5 hours (7pm NY time). And that Slim make the final copyedits after that (She's very good at this).

Then we ask anybody we think supports this to sign before 7am Friday, Feb. 7, at which time I'll send it via e-mail and copied on US mail.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just letting others who contributed to this page know that we are wrapping up SlimVirgin, Jmh649, CorporateM, DGG, Coretheapple

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait!

I think you guys have all of you lost your minds about this. This is WP, and the last thing we want in WP is government interference of any sort, or a request for government to tell us how to write the encyclopedia. If there is a problem with corporate edits, or anything else, we need to solve the problem ourselves. I'm not in any real sense a libertarian with respect to the world in general, But some people here are, and WP is to some extent a a libertarian oasis. We are dedicated to the principle of free speech perhaps more than anything else., and the basic concept of free speech is that it is not for any government to limit what can be said or written. I hold this pretty absolutely, Of course even libertarians have a problem with fraud and deceptive advertising,but in principle the way to deal with it is to counter it with the truth. WP exists is some part to do this, by providing a verifiable source of information: we do not decide on the truth, but present information for what it is, and rely on people to judge, even if they judge wrongly.

The reason I do not call myself a libertarian is that libertarians tend to want government interference when their own interests are being affected . They want governments to protect what they want to do, and prevent what might harm them. It seems obvious to me that this is exactly what is happening here. We would find it easier to deal with some sorts of trolls if their activities were illegal, and should therefore ask for a judgment that this is the case. This sort of thinking always has the risk that the judgment may be other than you . It also has what I think likely to be the more dangerous risk, that we will get a degree of interference greater than we want.

Europe, especially continental Europe, has a different tradition. The European court decisions fortunately do not apply here, and I say fortunate, because what would happen if they had gone the other way? Another recent case came close to doing just that. WP could not operate as it does were it subject to European rules on free speech, The US is the country with the greatest tolerance, along with the broadest interpretation of fair use, and the clearest law on immunizing the WMF as a carrier; those laws one reason why we're here.

The original pretense for this, was with respect to public health. It is usually possible to get people to agree on regulating claims that will directly and obviously harm people's physical wellbeing than on other topics. I remind everyone what was done in the first half of the 20th century in the name of public health.

Letters that individuals send outsiders are there own business. But only up to a point, if they amount to making a request in the name of the encyclopedia. Nobody can validly do this except with extremely broad consensus. If this goes ahead, I'm doing what I have never done before, taking something to ani. I suggest you at least give it enough time to hear what people say. Friday Feb 7 is the sort of deadline that is appropriate only in a true emergency. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The petition correctly states that it is from Wikipedia editors, not from the Wikipedia Community.

Commercial speech has long been subject to gov't regulation in the US. There's nothing new here of a constitutional nature. The FTC act, which is the law being interpreted, is as old as David, probably older. The basic interpretation they usually give related to the internet is that the same rules apply here as in any other media.

You are aware of the "right to petition" in the Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We are just asking what the law is. This is usually a very good thing to know, and I'm sure that most Wikipedians intend to follow the law, not skirt it by pretending to be ignorant.

You are free to ignore what I'm saying if you don't like it, but you are not free to censor me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones, I think that DGG is suggesting that sending this letter with the words "Wikipedia" anything on it might be expected to create identity confusion in the minds of the recipients, even if it is not your intent to do that. I imagine that if you sent this a revised version of this letter which omits establishing a relationship with the Wikipedia community then there would be no problem, because I think he is saying that one of the limits of free speech is when it infringes on rights of others. In this case misrepresentation of others' identities could be a result of this. I do feel that petitions are typically sent in a way that purports to be representative of a community of stakeholders, and this page being a petition means something. On one hand you wish to retain this project in your userspace, but from another perspective, this seems a bit like lobbying in the name of everyone. If this is something to be done on behalf of the rest of the community then I think it is fair to ask for more input. If this is your own free speech and you intend to avoid being identified as a community representative then it is good for you to do as you like. I do not think it would hurt to message someone relevant at WMF before doing this. I do expect that the day will come when Wikipedia will crowdsource the very concept of lobbying, and I appreciate your initiative for expediting Wikipedia's integration with government, but if I were in this position I would see nothing lost by pausing a bit to consider how the community wishes the Wikipedia name and brand to be used. Obviously a letter will be sent. Why not do it with community support? Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be like arguing that no Wikipedian can give an interview to the media without clearing it first with the community. This letter contains questions from several individuals who are volunteer editors with Wikipedia, and who would like to know how FTC regulations compare with some of the things that are happening on Wikipedia. If the community as a whole wants to make a formal approach with its own questions, that's a separate issue and can be done in parallel; indeed, any individual or group is welcome to contact the FTC.

I know that some people have wondered how the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK would handle these issues; again, all it would take would be one individual making a complaint. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware that anyone has the right to do this, and the right to petition is not the problem,any more than someone raises the right of free speech as the reason why they should have a WP article.

You are asking not what the law is, but for a federal agencies interpretation of their policies in enforcing a law. There is no way of finding out whether what they say is actually the law except by getting it judicially decided. I don't know how the FTC works, but I know a little of how the IRS works, and they are prepared to issue letters of opinion on which one may rely in further proceedings that they may take. The FTC may have a similar system. If they do, it would be relevant to proceedings by the FTC, not to what we do with submissions.

There are two problems, each of importance . First, not only must this not imply that it is not an activity of "Wikipedia", it has to be explicitly said very emphatically that these are individual editors who ask these questions, for their own enlightenment not as part of any WP process. This is a pretty basic idea. When I write to someone on anything remotely connected with WP,I describe myself as "one of the many volunteer editors", (just as in any answer I give somebody, I say I am basing it on my experience here, & trying to give the best advice I can about what will happen" no one here can speak in an official capacity.) I think this is true even when one is expressing what one knows to be the consensus of the community. Here, one is asking for something which I think is by no means the consensus of the community and which I think and hope will never get such consensus. I think it is open to question whether there is any way of wording this dissociation from our corporate insistence that will be sufficiently clear, and cannot be misunderstood.

The second problem is the basis of why I think we should ever individually or collectively take any such proactive action. Look up two paragraphs: Suppose I am wrong, and the FTC should give us a ruling that there is certain material we cannot legally publish. Are we then bound by it? We should rather do whatever we can to avoid giving any agency or court of any government an opportunity to tell us what we ought to publish, or to tell anybody what they ought to publish here.

Smallbones (et al), you are basically looking for material to help defeat the COI editors. We do not need the FTC to tell us what to say to them. when they write improperly here according to our own rules. I for one don't give a damn in WPO context whether a particular corporate piece of bullshit is against the rules of the FTC, and more than I concern myself whether the article about a Nazi is a violation of Canadian or German law: I care that it be a fair presentation according the canons of balanced and POV. In extension, if an article of our presenting the true picture of some hypothetic very harmful medical or quasi-medical procedure causes people to misunderstand (perhaps out of desperation) and try it, this does not mean we should not write about it, or balance our presentation to over-emphasize its defects any more than to underemphasize them, People will do wrong in the world; our job is to stop them in one respect only--that of providing information. the commercial use of the information is the job of the FTC and similar agencies, not ours. I neither want us to enforce their rules, or ask them to enforce ours. If companies run foul of regulations, it is their concern, and its between them and the regulators. f we get in the middle, we will come out the worse for it. They are too dangerous a friend. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't look at it that way. Smallbones is taking a step to protect the project in a manner that the WMF is either too chickenshit or too ignorant itself to do. Frankly I think that Wales and the WMF foundation should do this. But if they won't, I don't see the harm. I do think that it is a bit strange that anonymous volunteers, who have only a tenuous stake in this, have to act to protect the reputation of a project that they do not own, run by people who are well compensated to take steps like this but are failing to do so. My participation in this, if I decide to participate at all, will be extremely reluctant for just that reason. Why should I lift a finger to protect the reputations of this project and the people who run it? Why should I give a damn, especially when there is flack from people like you? Coretheapple (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In addition to what I've expressed above, I'd suggest that Smallbones consider my comment in the "unintended consequences" section below. I doubt very much that there will be the kind of cataclysmic consequences that are being forecast, but instead a realistic chance that this may boomerang, or more likely be an exercise in wheel-spinning. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

SV raises an interesting question above. If we ask the relevant authorities of various countries, we are likely to get various answers. We would presumably need to follow the US rule, but that would mean exposing editors from all other countries to liability. There are already problem in this regard with other types of content, but most of them have not come to wide notice, which is all to the good. The non-english speaking countries are mainly concerned with their own governments, and this produces a different set of problems which the movement as a whole cannot avoid, but at least they are dealing with only 1 (or sometimes 2 or 3). In the extreme, incompatibility of government rules and our principles has made it impossible for us to be edited freely in some countries, and we would hardly want the list extended. We cannot help what governments may notice on their own, or what parties outside WP may try to force on us, but that we should go out of our way to call attention to potential difficulties does not seem rational. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wording and questions

I remember years ago being told that you only hire a consultant after you know what you want the consultant to find. Reading these questions feels a bit like that. It seems that the examples and the wording is written so as to preclude a particular finding. I have some concerns about the opening - in particular, the wording that seems to suggest that PR professionals hide in order to "advertise, market, or promote products or services", and the highlighting of the German findings, but my main concern is with the wording of the questions. My main concern there is that you are missing the most basic question - if a member of a company or their representative adds neutral, sourced information about their product or organisation, such that it meets Wikipedia's rules, and does not otherwise promote the company or product, is it a problem? Most of the examples given are against Wikipedia's policies to begin with, and the answer is self evident, so asking them just seems like an easy way of getting a "yes, that's a problem" to something we already know is a problem. The real concern is the basic question, as to whether or not paid or COI editing that meets all of Wikipedia's policies of being sourced, neutral and non-promotional is a problem in and of itself.

Otherwise, has there been any independent legal advice that this is a particular concern? I'd like to know what the WMF's legal team's take on this is. - Bilby (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "most basic question" is C.2. Feel free to send your own questions to endorsements@ftc.gov . But do be aware that this is about US law and regulations, not about Wikipedia's rules. Wikilawyering does not apply. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

At what point did I start wikilawyering? At any rate, no, C.2. is not the most basic question, as it relates to writing a "review", and has a particular SEO outcome in mind. - Bilby (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, we do have a question asking "Would it make any difference if the restaurant owner (or employee/contractor) attempted to write an unbiased review of the restaurant?" That would cover the kind of thing you have in mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it does, because of the reference to a review. I think what is missing is if undisclosed paid editing, even when adding unbiased, sourced, factual information, that does not endorse a product or company, is a problem. I guess my interest in the FTC rules is that they seem designed to prevent undisclosed paid endorsements and reviews, and I'm not sure that a Wikipedia article would fall under that. I'm also not sure that it wouldn't. If it is the case that doing something seemingly innoculous, like updating the CEO or covering a recent merger, is a problem, then it clarifies the whole paid editing problem. If not, and if the boundaries lie at the same place as existing policy, then we remain stuck in the "edits, not the editor" bottleneck. - Bilby (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've changed review to article to make it clearer. I think the example would be better without the SEO thing, because the point of the question is whether trying to be neutral (for whatever reason) would make a difference.

Bilby, I'm not sure I follow your argument. The questions are about situations where readers arrive at an article expecting to read an independent text, and instead find a text written by, or on behalf of, the subject, without disclosure in the article.

The question is whether that practice (in its various manifestations) violates FTC rules. That is, when readers expect to read an independent text, ought they to be delivered an independent text, or does the content make a difference (attempts to be neutral, sourced v unsourced, etc)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

SV, we do not need the federal government to keep out biased restaurant articles, we just need WP:RS. We write for people with some knowledge of the world, who are aware that publications can always be biased, and judge restaurants by their own experience. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Unintended consequences

Smallbones, I appreciate your passion for dealing with COI, but I would call your attention to the risk of unintended consequences. My guess is that you are looking for a "ruling" -- just some words that would stand as a legal threat that you could deploy in arguments to drive internal change. But the FTC might decide to require corrective action if they offer a ruling. Which is what regulators do - they take action. (And as a taxpayer, I want regulators to spend time on things that lead to tangible outcomes.) An FTC attorney could read this sentence "It is against Wikipedia's rules to advertise, market, or promote products or services, so an advertiser here must be hidden by definition. Readers assume that articles are written or crowd-sourced independently. Disclosure that meets FTC rules has to be clear and conspicuous, generally right next to the "triggering claim." This is impossible in Wikipedia articles.", the attorney could think: "The way that Wikipedia is structured by the WMF, particularly by allowing anonymous editing, it cannot ensure compliance with the law. This is negligence. Given the importance of Wikipedia as an information source, this cannot stand. I will recommend that the FTC require WMF to require editors to disclose their identities, to require editors who make edits that are advertisements to disclose the nature of that content in the body of the article, and to ban editors who fail to comply. This would relieve the negligence." If the FTC went through with that, I imagine that the outcome of such a regulatory action would be a long and expensive legal battle, as allowing anonymous editing seems to be a core value that the WMF would fight to defend. Which would mean that money and time are devoted to that litigation instead of things that the WMF would have directed them to otherwise, that would build the encyclopedia. Not to mention the ways that requiring editors to disclose real-life identities would change Wikipedia. (There are many who think that would be a great outcome, I know) There are other actions I could see the FTC taking as well. Perhaps these are the sorts of outcomes you are looking for, I don't know. I am not signing this petition and recommend against others doing so, as I think the risk of unintended consequences is too great. I am with User:DGG on this point - it is a bad idea to poke a sleeping lion; you cannot control it, and it can do you serious harm in ways you had not imagined. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you smallbones for inviting me into this proposal/discussion. I admire your passion, and share your disdain for those who would use our encyclopedia to advertize and promote themselves or their products. However, I have an equal disdain for any intervention, rules, laws or gibberish involving the United States Government and the Internet. I think you may be asking for trouble with your proposal. The lazy bureaucrats would probably never reply, and if they did, who knows what can of worms we'd be opening. Personally, I think we need to set our own guidelines, and do our best to clean up the messes where we find them. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the invitation Smallbones. It is an important question, and one that all paid advocacy editors need to bear in mind at all times. Yet, after reading Jytdog's posting, I am persuaded not to add my psuedonym to your letter. Sorry. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that there may be unintended consequences, but that they are more likely to be a show of indifference or even approval of Wikipedia practices, making it even harder to police paid editing. So while I think the scenario laid out here is far-fetched in the extreme, I do think that Smallbones should carefully consider the possible adverse consequences of this effort, and the possibility that it may backfire. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC) (However, there's been so much hysteria and scaremongering that I decided to sign despite my doubts.) Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Core, I object to "hysteria." There was nothing hysterical in what I wrote, nor is there scaremongering. Considering risk is just, considering risk. I am glad we agree on the importance of considering unintended consequences, whether they would help stop paid advocacy or would hinder the effort to stop it.Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And I will add, that those who do not perceive that the problem is as widespread as you perceive it, apply that exact set of labels to your concerns about paid advocacy. It is just unhelpful to slap on these kinds of labels. But that is a conversation we've been having since our first encounter.Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a question on what I expect to happen. I expect that the FTC will, sooner or later, respond in some form that makes clear that if a company pays to have a message inserted into any media (including a Wikipedia article) that might reasonably affect a consumer's buying decision, then the connection between the advertiser and the person inserting the message must be disclosed clearly and conspicuously. If the disclosure can't be made, then the message cannot be inserted. That much is clear settled law. There are questions here that are not so clear, and I expect that many of them will be clarified.

As far as "calling in" a vicious animal to police Wikipedia or that the FTC will dictate Wikipedia rules, I don't expect anything like this to happen. The arguments that Wikipedia is somehow above or outside the law, or that one request for clarification of the law will somehow break the project, I find to be absurd. Wikipedia does operate under US law and always has; the basic law I am asking to be interpreted was formalized in the 1930s for advertisers, and really goes back forever (fraud). Hopefully, editors here will realize that we cannot ignore this law and will take serious steps to prevent the law from being broken. We do it for copyright law, why not do it for the law on deception in advertising? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I didn't say that Wikipedia is above or outside the law, nor did I say you were going to "call in" anybody, nor did I call the FTC a "vicious animal" (the lion metaphor was meant to convey "not controllable" and "powerful" and "can harm you" - no implication intended that is is malicious in any way). Didn't say any of that and I don't appreciate the mischaracterization. You will of course do as you will, and I hope for the best outcome! Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to mischaracterize you, but was rather addressing all the comments in the above 3-4 sections. I do think that we are turning a blind eye - in some cases due to ignorance or a very extreme version of libertarianism - to a very serious problem and to people obviously breaking of the law. Wikipedia is turning into "Adopedia" which would be a tragedy. We take steps to comply with the law on copyright, and on libel, and I think, in general, that has contributed to the success of Wikipedia. We're not a complete Wild-West, anything-goes encyclopedia, but a a pretty trustworthy encyclopedia. Weeding out ads will only help. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think while the community is united in wanting there to be no advertising in Wikipedia (and there may be widespread agreement that it is a violation of FTC regs as well), you know as well as I do that there are some fundamental (and good faith on both sides) disagreements about how to address the problem that come down to people's core values as Wikipedians; there is also honest disagreement about pervasive the problem is, and no data to make it clear. So you have arguments over values and perceived-size-of-problem (which again comes down to values). These fundamental disagreements, and the lack of data, have prevented new action; I do not think there is blind-eye turning, really. There is a lack of sustained, calm dialogue to find acceptable new action (which is hard when values conflict!). I have been hoping that Denk would make that happen and have been looking for it... but it is on me (and each of us) to make it happen. I need to find some bandwidth to work on that again. Anyway thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And it would indeed be interesting if the FTC offered opinions on the questions asked, btw. I think the questions might be seen as kind of bizarre (or maybe better, byzantine) outside of the rarefied wikipedia world where things like "NPOV" and "OR" and "reliable sources" and "weight" inform so much of how we think even when we do not mention them. (e.g. the restaurant owner who adds "referenced and non-referenced content". I can see an FTC attorney doing some head-scratching over that distinction.) Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Up until this proposal, we have consulted each other on our rules, and consensus between editors has dictated our policies. Why invite a third party here to potentially begin dictating rules and policy; especially a US agency that hasn't been able to successfully enforce their own rules? In my humble opinion, our problem is: we have evolved past the point of "anyone can edit Wikipedia". It was great and served its purpose when we started this venture, but it has finally run its course. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• The scenario seems unrealistic, not least because the FTC, like anyone else, has been able to read the news stories about PR people editing WP, and if they'd wanted to intervene they'd have done so. This is just an inquiry about the parameters of the law, from consumers as much as from Wikipedians. When I read a WP article about a prescription drug, I don't want it to have been written by the drug company. If I want company blurb I go to their website; when I read Wikipedia I want something else.

  Sue Gardner wrote recently that ethical companies and individuals want to know what Wikipedia's rules are so they can follow them. At the moment our COI guideline is very wishy-washy (X is strongly discouraged, Y very strongly discouraged) so it would be helpful if we could say what the parameters are in terms of US law.

  The problem we have with consensus on WP is that PR people have involved themselves in governance discussions. It's impossible to know what consensus would be without that influence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

but almost any position and PR person has taken is also taken by others. You seem to trying to change the rules to remove a class of contributors and ignore their views about it because they are inherently biased. It would make just as good sense to ask what would be the consensus if we removed from the discussion the volunteer editors like you and me, who might envy the financial returns of the paid editors and thus have a strong COI in eliminating them. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi SV: I agree that the most likely response from the FTC would not be the scenario I laid out above; however there is a risk it could be some action. This was about considering risk, To both of you, DGG and SV, how can we help the communtiy work toward consensus on this (as opposed to just accusing the other side of bad faith, over and over?)Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Not pharma - please reword

I think the FDA oversees pharma ads in the US, not the FTC. Perhaps you would get better results if you reword that question with another industry. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hroðulf

Thanks for signing! The petition has now been sent.

As I understand it, the FTC regulates over-the-counter medicine and the FDA regulates prescription medicine. An earlier version of the question asked about this distinction, but it seems that folks here thought that we should stick to the main points.

The Division of Advertising Practices at the FTC lists 2 medical related issues as their top priorities in enforcement

The FDA regulation is complicated, but seems to be at least as strict as the FTC's regulation. Essentially they take each case individually and hand-craft the regulation.

I would think that if we were to make a policy on undisclosed advertising consistent with FTC rules, that that policy would at least begin to cover the FDA process.

Feel free to ask your question for the FTC at endorsements@ftc.gov , but I don't know the proper place to ask the FDA a question.

A response to our questions may first appear at http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus71-ftcs-revised-endorsement-guideswhat-people-are-asking

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Good move. Have you made contact with a specific person in the agency to alert them to this high-profile request? And could "talk page" be defined or exemplified to non-WPians, to make it harder for them to put this in the too-hard box? I also think the point should have been made at the outset that the rules were framed for a range of conventional advertising genres, and that paid advertising on Wikipedia is a subtle and increasingly problematic new phenomenon that requires guideline text can be interpreted for application to it, too.

Part of civil servants' jobs is to give as little information as possible (with good reason, in some ways); we need to make it easier for them to grapple with the subtle grey areas we're posing and pave the way for more specific guidelines in a few areas. They will face commercial interests that don't want specificity, won't they.

Question E is impossibly vague, to me. The company removes what text from the article?

I agree with what Slim says above. For example, this query appears a number of times: "Does this violate FTC rules?" But which rules? Citing specific rules helps to nail down those who might respond to this request for judgement. Why not show that we're perfectly aware of their text (which is not helping when it comes to WP), pointing by implication to where they need to be brave and add more detail. (Otherwise we'll keep asking, won't we, and asserting in public that the rules are ineffective.)

For example, Question A, first question is:

• "To what extent does this violate FTC rules?"

This might be:

• "To what extent does this violate the FTC's understanding of "proximity", "prominence", and "unavoidable", and "distraction" in the first four bullets on p. 7, and subsequent related sections? One concern is that while Wikipedia's editors might be aware of talk pages, most readers are probably not (talk pages are accessed through a tab at the top of each article)."

And it would be better to cite more specific texts instead of those bullets; greater detail (although nowhere near great enough) occurs in sectionalised form later in the doc.

You have to wonder when you see this, on p. 8, where more detail is presented about the placement of disclosures: "In evaluating placement, advertisers should also take into consideration empirical research about where consumers do and do not look on a screen." I rather think advertisers might take that research into consideration to minimise the impact of the disclosure, not to maximise it. No, it's the regulators who need to take that research into consideration and to inject its findings into their guidelines and rules in specific and digestible terms. So you see the balancing act the FTC is performing, between commercial lobbyists and a more common good (including ... us)?

Page 8 also mentions mobile devices and scrolling, without providing any solution or even advice ... Yep, our readers are increasingly accessing us on mobile devices. So what does the FTC think advertisers should do for mobile displays? How do small mobile interfaces change the game? This is children's playground stuff, and they won't make it better unless there's a strong and sustained push. It's all very threatening for powerful interests.

The pdf is either too small or too large (and when large won't change page). A message that you add 5 to the page number you want when selecting the tab above—that would be useful.

Tony (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I am following up on this. While this particular text may or may not have a direct impact, it's clear that folks in the right places are interested in the basic question. They can read the newspapers and part of their job is getting information out to the public.

There is a problem giving these folks information on Wikirules and Wikiculture in a form they can understand, but I think there's a bigger problem with Wikipedians not understanding that our rules and the specifics of our situation don't matter as much as the overall law and regulation.

Feel free to send your own questions to endorsements@ftc.gov ! Maybe even "The Signpost interviews the FTC" I'm sure I can find some email addresses even if I don't really know who will answer them.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I found some precedent in FTC opinions

• Talk:Encyclopædia_Britannica#Encyclop.C3.A6dia_Britannica_versus_Federal_Trade_Commission

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That has to do with how Britannica sold encyclopedias themselves (deceptively said it was doing "surveys" but was actually selling encyclopedias) - this is a different matter from there being "ads" hidden in Wikipedia articles selling some third party's "stuff" (be that a product, a service, an image, etc) Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a well-known case against Reverb Communications from 2010 that is a good example of the FTC taking action on its disclosure laws. Employees were allegedly posing as disinterested consumers in order to write fake reviews in the iPhone store for app developers. The company claimed their interns were writing the reviews based on their genuine personal experiences and each maintained only one account, which would protect them if true, but the FTC said the reviews were all five stars and included corporate messaging we can't reasonably be convinced was not part of a corporate-managed process. Of course these cases usually deal with reviews that are based on personal experiences, which is a bit different than Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 18:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)