User talk:Jrogers (WMF)

Thanks

Welcome!

Hi Jrogers (WMF), and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links you might find helpful:

Ask questions at the Teahouse or my talk. On talk pages, remember to sign your messages by typing a space then four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. That automatically inserts your user name and the date. Happy editing!

That's my standard welcome simply so your talk page link is not red. Thanks for your message at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF). Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status Labs

Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I moved your note to Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF), which seems like a more appropriate place for that discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump Paid editors

There have been several requests for follow up information since you commented at VPP. I was wondering if you would be able to comment there? Thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw there was further discussion, but I don't have anything to add. The change would be helpful because it would make it easier for the Foundation to support the communities when we get reports of paid editing posts on other websites. I can't go into further detail about our processes though, for much the same reason as I couldn't earlier when responding on the Status Labs case. These are public spaces that are also read by people trying to look for ways to avoid getting caught. I do wish this were easier to discuss.

Did you forget to sign in? PackMecEng (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, didn't notice I had been logged out. Above comment is from me. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans, thanks for the extra info. PackMecEng (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being asked to go into more detail about your processes; you are being asked to address valid concerns about the impact that the proposed change would have on people who are not its intended targets. Please do so, on the linked page. If you feel you unable to do so, please ask your manager to do so, or to find someone who can. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me towards a particular comment where my feedback would be helpful (or just note here and I can reply)? My expertise is as a Foundation lawyer, so I felt the info I could offer was that the change would help the Foundation support the community. I'm not sure that I or other staff on my team are in a position to know better than community members as to how the policy change might be enforced by the community in a way that has unintended negative impacts. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This change, which will have considerable effect on a group of good-faith editors, is being pushed through largely on the basis of your and your team's support for it. You (collectively) need to address all of the resultant issues raised in that regard, as set out in the discussion to which I linked. That said, you might start by addressing the issues around Wikimedians in Residence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the RFC is that it's designed to exempt Wikimedians in Residence (they are GLAM editors, so they would not be included as editors who "advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services" per the note in the original post). If you read the change differently, I would suggest proposing a wording tweak. It may make sense to call this out explicitly in the policy, such as adding a line saying that this requirement does not apply to editors who are part of a GLAM or Wikimedian in Residence program. I apologize, but I don't think there's any I can contribute beyond this. The proposal here is one proposed by a community member through normal processes. They asked for my thoughts and I continue to think that this change would help the Foundation more successfully remove paid editing job postings that the community asks for our support in addressing. It's not our intent to make life harder for people doing GLAM editing. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedian in Residence are widely deemed to "obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services".

The proposed change is set out precisely thus:


Current text of the fifth paragraph of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure § How to disclose	Proposed Amendments Text highlighted in yellow has been added.
Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services. If such an account is deleted or removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week.	Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services. If such an account is deleted or removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week. Additionally, paid editors must provide links to the user page(s) of their Wikipedia account(s) on each website on which they advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing services, as well as in direct communications with each client and potential client (such as through email). If the paid editor has used or controlled more than one Wikipedia account, each account must be disclosed.

Which part of that exempts Wikimedians in Residence?

Furthermore, a cursory glance at the support !votes finds, in the first few rows:

Support. WMF Legal says it'll help them fight UPE, what more justification do we need?
Support - if Legal is on board with this, I see no reason why we shouldn't be.
Support. If WMF Legal says this'll help them enforce the Terms of Use against noncomplying entities, then count me in. [...] If WMF Legal says they can use this to help deal with UPE, then that's enough reason to support in my book.
Support – I've been in numerous discussions with WMF Legal where they asked for something like this

and many more beyond that, in similar vein. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-request for a response

@Jrogers (WMF): - Can we re-ping you for a response to this concern? It is not often, or it is usually only with careful consideration, when the Wikimedia Foundation declares a viewpoint for a community RfC and vote in this manner. I don't think it is too much to ask for further elaboration on whether and how the Foundation declared an institutional stance with far-reaching implications, especially one that specifically impacts a user group such as Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network. As Pigsonthewing mentioned, there was no carve-out exemption for Wikimedians in residence, and as written, most everyone in the user group is likely in violation of this policy. We are accustomed to a formal statement or declaration from the Foundation on a wiki page when it comes to matters such these where it can be referred to or discussed, and not simply left as a casual talk page comment. So I hope you can see why there is concern on behalf of an Affcom-recognized user group about the current situation. Thanks for your attention to this and I look forward to your reply. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen the RfC when it was open, wasn't sure how to respond and it looks like I forgot. I just read the policy addition again and want to say something.

Additionally, paid editors must provide links to the user page(s) of their Wikipedia account(s) on each website on which they advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing services, as well as in direct communications with each client and potential client (such as through email). If the paid editor has used or controlled more than one Wikipedia account, each account must be disclosed.

I'm not a paid editor. Though I might consider trying it if I was desperate for money. That being said: ~~I would do it legit~~ Would have done it legit before this policy change.

Provide links to user page(s) on each website where one.. obtains paid editing services. So if I respond to a request "Can somebody write a Wikipedia article for us? We pay $50" I would have to provide links to user pages on a website on which I may not be publishing anything at all! So this may be impossible for paid editors who merely respond to job offers.
If the paid editor has used or controlled more than one Wikipedia account, each account must be disclosed. Um yeah I'll publicly disclose that alternate account I used for that genital piercing picture to potential clients.. maybe not. (you'd think this example is completely made up, wouldn't you?)

If I were to take up paid editing, I'd definitely go underground now because these requirements are wholly unreasonable. And this is coming from someone who is generally a fan of WMF legal. But with this one you really missed the mark. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that there isn't more I can add here. I'll note that in the original RFC it says in the paragraph below the text addition "This new requirement is intended only to apply to those who "advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services"; it does not apply to employees editing Wikipedia in the normal course of their duties, or to GLAM editors." I share that understanding, but if you think that's not enough, I'd encourage you to suggest a further amendment. I weighed in here because the change would help the legal team support the community on undisclosed paid editing issues, for which we have received numerous requests. It should not harm GLAM editing, nor require people to create pages they would never have made in the first place. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to write/propose an amendment, but exactly what is it here that provides Legal with a stick, so I can be sure to not accidentally break your stick? If you don't want to explain this publicly somehow, mail me. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You repeat the claim that the change was not supposed to apply to WiRs. On 6 November - before the proposal to change was passed - I pasted a copy, on this page, in full, of that proposed change (it's still visible, above, with yellow highlighting), and asked you "Which part of that exempts Wikimedians in Residence?". You did not respond. There is no such exception, in the policy as revised by the change you, on behalf of the WMF, supported. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Nicholas Alahverdian

Hi Jacob, I'd love to touch base with you on the discussion there as I have some information that might shed some light onto the situation. Is there a number I can call rather than e-mail? It's quite a lot and it would be easier for me to talk through it. I understand obviously if this is not possible. CUPIDICAE💕 19:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a good phone number (since the pandemic, I'm only remote and don't have a desk phone set up), but I can send you an email for scheduling a google hangout. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV/Noticeboard#Communications_from_government_of_India_to_WMF

...Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Communications from government of India to Wikimedia Foundation regarding content about maps depicting the borders of India

@Jrogers (WMF). In your introduction you wrote,

"The Foundation Legal Department’s opinion is that the first request to inform the communities about the notices to the Foundation is reasonable and in line with our transparency principles, and we are therefore making this post." (emphasis added)

and

"Where possible, we defer the question of making these changes to community processes and are here to provide transparency on this situation and our perspective on options." (emphasis added)

You later wrote, "In the interest of transparency, we thought it necessary to bring this to the attention of the community. I want to clarify that we are not proposing any specific changes; rather, we’re hoping to communicate our understanding of the situation for consideration by the community." (emphasis added)

You may have missed these threads, so please consider responding to my requests on the NPOV page above.

My first questions (quoted):

"@Jrogers (WMF). For full transparency, can you post redacted copies of these several communications from the Government of India's MeitY related to this issue and the Wikimedia Foundation's redacted written response(s) thus far? Also, have you contacted the Internet Archive about a recent removal of a Public Domain book with a 1868 map of India by an India-based uploader? They might share if there has been a request from MeitY as well. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)"

Later follow-up to my unanswered questions (quoted):

"... I requested of @Jrogers (WMF) for a redacted copy(s) of the recent Government of India's communications to the Wikikmedia Foundation, but I have not received a response (see above). WMF Legal wrote, "... in 2023, the Indian government’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) sent the Foundation several direct complaints about specific maps." (emphasis added) -- Ooligan (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)"

Thank you in advance. -- Ooligan (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]