Wikipedia talk:Terms of use/Archive 1

See Wikipedia:Terms of use (proposal) for an extended version (which is more controversial), and Wikipedia_talk:Terms_of_use_(proposal) for discussion of that extension. Martin 23:56, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I delinked Wikipedia:Submission Standards, so this can become official first, and that can follow later. Martin 23:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:legal disclaimer.

Potential additions

Potential additions (to be considered after v1.0):

1. "user's rights and obligations" section of wikipedia:copyrights. Eg, the images as aggregation interpretation. Assuming this is legal.

2. nonediting bots policy (see wikipedia:bots). If you want to slurp Wikipedia, download the database instead.

3. choice of law - if you sue Wikimedia under this contract, do so here, under this set of laws.

4. arbitration - go through arbitration first, please.

Martin 01:52, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The version here as I type this looks quite good - no catches that I can see. Jamesday 02:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why GFDL?

Given that the Wikimedia Foundation owns no (or at any rate very little) copyright on Wikipedia materials, why is the GFDL being described as agreement between me and the Foundation? It surely is an agreement between me and the thousands of contributors? Morwen - Talk 11:11, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It can be an agreement between the foundation and you, because the foundation has the permission to grant you a GFDL license, as Wikipedia contributors have granted the foundation permission (and indeed everyone) to grant you permission. That's the nature of a copyleft license like the GFDL.

Similarly, if I buy a Red Hat linux CD, then Red Hat grants me permission under the GPL, even though the majority of what's on that CD was not written by Red Hat. One might argue, for example, that the disclaimers are added by Wikimedia, rather than by individual contributors. Martin 15:33, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Title 17

Please make very clear as an opening statement what the exact purpose of this document is--to warn people against taking copyright vios from the histories. It was not clear to me when i first read it (at 7:30 am on the weekend, mind you, but still ...) Danny 11:26, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The document as a whole may have various purposes in the future (eg anti-bot, see above), but currently it's Title 17, and the disclaimers. The purpose of Title 17 is (to quote the summary in the intro), "You should be aware of the copyright limitations that may exist on those archival materials". I think that's as clear as it can be? Martin 13:06, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then move it right to the top. No one likes to read through legal jargon to get to that. Danny 13:09, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think Danny is making an excellent point. Just because the legal world prefers obtuse language, doesn't mean we should. By adding an intro along the lines he suggests [1] we have everything to gain and nothing to lose. The first time I looked at it I didn't get the msg either. -- Viajero 13:36, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We have an intro. It's marked as SUMMARY. It is ridiculous to have an intro to the summary. Martin 13:38, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FYI: section 108 of Title 17. Martin 13:46, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, how about the following:

---

This page describes the general terms and conditions for reading the Wikipedia site.

SUMMARY

1. You agree to the license granted on the copyrights page, and associated disclaimers.
2. Certain things like page histories are archives as defined under the US Copyright Act. Copyright limitations may exist on materials in these archives.
3. This is an agreement between you and the Wikimedia Foundation. Even if you don't spend the time to read this you accept you have notice of it and are bound by it.

What follows is the unavoidable legal text. We hope you spend the time to read it and if you have any questions please post them on the talk page. If you do not agree with these terms we ask that you do not read this site. Thank you.

<unavoidable legal text here>

---

Any improvements? There are a number of things we have to get across in the summary, so there is a certain minimum size involved. This might even be too small - need to check with Alex. Martin 14:12, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't agree to the terms of the contract offerred. I intend to continue using the site because in my opinion the Foundation has already given its approval for me to do so, by its continued use of open "wiki" software, and as consideration in my agreement to abide by the terms of the GFDL. -- Tim Starling 01:38, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

General terms section removed

I fail to see how this is an agreement between any user and the Wikimedia Foundation when firstly, no users have so much as clicked an "I accept" button, and secondly, the Wikimedia Foundation have made no comment on the validity of this contract at all. I think both these points need to be addressed before you start inferring that anyone has agreed to anything. To the best of my knowledge, they have not. You can claim there are some terms of use, but please do not try to make it sound as though this is official or has the agreement of the board. Angela (not speaking officially, just giving my opinion). 01:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Put in 'any use of Wikipedia' or 'any use of wikipedia on a user account' ... 'implies that you have agreed to this liscense' Ilyanep 01:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The text already has this: "By using the Wikipedia site in any manner you are expected to make yourself aware of this agreement and have notice that it applies to you even if you do not contribute here or maintain a user account under your own name or use an account of any other person". Is this what you were thinking of? Martin 11:03, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You don't necessarilly need an "I agree" button - compare other terms of use, such as http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms, which purport to bind people without such an "I agree" button.

Your other point probably applies. Tim's comment below may render this moot. Martin 10:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to laugh out loud here, but I discovered this page today, and I must write it is incredible madness, a caricature of what the United States are supposed to be seen from sceptic old Europe (and seen by lots of Americans themselves too, I suppose) : a paradise for lawyers.

I more or less agree with what User:Angela wrote at the beginning of this section, but I am more extreme. I am totally amazed to see that people think "hopefully non-controversial" to write Even if you don't spend the time to read this you accept you have notice of it and are bound by it at the beginning of a 50 lines page.

Asking for every reader to conclude a contract with the Wikimedia Foundation seems surrealistic. Do the initiators of this project have any prospect of suing a reader for non-compliance of his engagments ? If not, as I hope, no need to ask the reader to be bound by any disposition. Some of the sentences of this project are certainly useful, e.g. those about prior edits, but they should be written as a caution above old edits, not on a Terms of use page that only some masochistic users shall read. --French Tourist 12:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed from MediaWiki:Copyright footer

I've removed the link to this page from the footer. The role it fulfilled is now performed by MediaWiki:History copyright. Since Angela removed all mention of the Wikimedia Foundation, there is no second party to the contract and hence it is invalid. The community, by consensus or otherwise, has no right to restrict or allow the reading of material on this site, and hence there is no valid consideration. The proposed contract is also misleading in that it implies sysops have agreed to edit the contract only with community consensus. This is not the case. The effects of edits by sysops would be legally binding to anyone reading the site and not bothering to check for an updated contract. -- Tim Starling 04:18, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:History copyright looks good.

Sysops would have agreed as a result of reading the site and thus agreeing to the terms of use, if the terms of use were binding (if they were not binding, it is in any case irrelevant).

Given your and Angela's objections, I have reverted my changes. Martin 11:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, the text doesn't make it very clear that by agreeing to this contract, sysops are agreeing not to edit the page. See my changes to Wikipedia:Submission Standards on this point. -- Tim Starling 02:01, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

The article claims that This is a protected page but it is not, in fact, protected. Is this on purpose or is it an oversight? -- pne 12:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's just a proposal now. While it's a proposal it's unprotected because it doesn't need to be protected. If/when it becomes official, it will be protected. Martin 17:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)