Commons talk:Requests for comment/Alternative paid contribution disclosure policy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Test case[edit]

If someone would like to pay me $0.50 to take a photograph of something that is not currently in Commons, then pay me an additional $0.50 to upload it, I will be happy to act as a test case against the Wikimedia Foundation's new Terms of Use, when I take the photo, upload it, and do not disclose (on my User page, on the Talk page of the photo, or in the edit summary of the upload) that I was paid for the work. If the Wikimedia Foundation wishes to sue me over one dollar's worth of work, I will be happy to take on Geoff Brigham and the other legal powerhouses at New Montgomery Street. -- Thekohser (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • @Thekohser: I will pay you $1 to take a photograph of the cornerstone of the Comcast building and to upload it to Commons. I will pay you via Paypal upon completion. Regards, russavia (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@Russavia: I have captured and uploaded this photo of the Comcast Center's most cornerstone-like panel. -- Thekohser (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@Thekohser: @Russavia:I'd probably comment on this at Wikipediocracy, which Greg owns, but I was just suspended there without warning for exposing, in a private forum, a troll who libels Wikipedians based on misleading evidence, so here I am. I predict that, in short order, the global account for Thekohser will be locked for TOS violation, which just technically occurred, was intentional, clearly intended to be a violation. They will not sue, that would be completely silly over the issue. Test case, sure. Greg, you are testing their response. If they lock your account, whose move is it?
Above, are you saying that you will sue them ("take on ... Bingham") if they lock you? At this point, Commons has not yet established the exemption and documented it as the TOS requires. I would not care to be your attorney if you wanted to take action on this. That, in addition, looks a bit like a legal threat. We all know what happens with legal threats on-wiki, right?
Once you are locked for TOS violation, I'm not aware of any obligation they would have to review the situation if the action becomes one that is no longer a violation. I think your action here was a tad rash. It was certainly quick.
Russavia, this will not test the new TOS, they won't break a sweat. Commons will create an exemption, that is obviously sane and going to happen. The TOS may be very difficult to enforce, but that's not our problem as users. Unless, of course, we want to make it our problem, as some obviously do. Really not a Commons issue, but Commons may lose Greg as a user. --Abd (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@Thekohser: You have now had payment of $1 sent to you. russavia (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
That turned out to be a waste of a buck. The real test will be if Kosher starts a policy discussion on only allowing images of Comcast buildings to be uploaded and gets it to pass. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this action in line with the new Wikimedia-wide policy i.e. the "paid contribution" has been clearly declared here? Green Giant (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Green Giant:, no, because it was not disclosed in one of the three places identified in the resolution -- user page, wiki page/wiki talk page, or edit summary. (This is one of the reasons I think the resolution wasn't a good idea, as I explained here.) -Pete F (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean, I stand corrected. Interesting reading material by the way, particularly your ethics statement. Green Giant (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad you found the SoE interesting -- happy to entertain any feedback you might have, let me know. -Pete F (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

Why does Commons allow Paid Contributors to participate in policy matters? Uploads I understand, as freebies and freebies regardless of the source. However, when paid contributors are allowed to participate, undisclosed, in the setting of Commons policy it invites issues of CoI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As it is not fair to pay contributions (because not all have the same value), it is not fair to pay for uploads photos (not all have the same quality and value). Contributions paid end up killing the passion to work. Use sections of QI, and VI FP value to pay taxes also end up corrupting these sections and eventually kill the collaborative spirit. This is a paradox that right now, WMF intervention in communities has only helped fuel the mass of bureaucracy (especially in Latino communities). I really wanted to dedicate myself to the Wikimedia projects full time, I would be very happy to work receiving pay for my contributions, thereby forgetting to pay the bills and devote myself to contribute. However, this is a paradox that I mentioned above, create a committee to evaluate contributions pay can be very dangerous and bring corruption schemes, contributions can not be paid because not all are equal, each contribution varies as the same spirit human is. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H., my friend, did you read the project page for this policy? You are talking about something completely different than the issue I raised. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I invite you to further explore my comment beyond and not underestimate the comment. I know exactly what you are talking about. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I understood what you wrote and I get the sarcasm I am just not sure why you thought it germane to this narrow issue of undisclosed conflict of interest in policy making. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)