This post is available in 2 languages:

Español  • English

English

Since the launch of Wikipedia in 2001, the community has grown from a few inspired individuals to tens of thousands of volunteers, working on twelve official Wikimedia Projects, in hundreds of languages, with the support of chapters and user groups around the world. Whether you have been a member of the movement for five years or five minutes, there is one common thread that connects all of us, and that is our dedication to the mission of spreading free knowledge throughout the world.

Where we are now.

As stewards of this deeply-connected community, the Wikimedia Foundation takes seriously our role in protecting and encouraging the work of Wikimedians everywhere. You are the reason the Wikimedia Projects continue to educate and inform the world, and we value your opinion on the issues that matter to you.

We know that privacy is important to you, especially in light of recent events. We will continue to stand by the commitment to collect far less data than other major websites, to limit use of your data for research and analytics and to improve your Wikimedia experience, and to never sell your data or use it for commercial purposes.

We also recognize that our policies need to adapt to the changing legal and technological landscape. Our current privacy policy has not changed since 2008, and we believe it is time to update our terms to stay true to what the community and Projects are today. Thus, we are in the process of creating a new privacy policy to better serve you and to better explain how your data is collected, used and shared.

You deserve a privacy policy that is clear and straightforward in its terms, one that details exactly what information we collect and what we do with that information, and one that reflects community values and feedback.

To do this, we want and need your input.

One of our goals for this undertaking is transparency, both in the policy-drafting process and in the terms of the policy itself. For the next month, we would like to open a dialogue with community members to discuss key privacy issues, including cookies (no raisins), data security (hooray!) and third-party advertisements (no, thank you).

This initial consultation period will last until July 18, 2013. Once we have completed a draft of the new privacy policy, we will then open a lengthier community consultation period so that you have the opportunity to review the draft and provide more detailed feedback.

As members of the community, your input is invaluable. This is why we are kicking off an open discussion period now, so your voices can be heard, and so we can incorporate your feedback as we draft a new privacy policy.

Send us your questions, comments, and concerns.

What do you like and what do you not like about the current policy? What do you think should or should not be in the new policy? What community values should the new policy embody? Do you have any concerns about past or current Wikimedia Foundation privacy practices? Are there recent U.S. or international privacy trends that you want us to consider?

Please contribute your comments, questions, and suggestions here.

The Wikimedia Foundation values the community members, and it is our hope that through collaboration and consultation, we can create a privacy policy that gives all of us the freedom to continue experimenting, learning and bettering the Wikimedia Projects, while maintaining our dedication to the privacy.

Thank you.

Michelle Paulson ^[1]
Legal Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation

[With our appreciation, we ask the international Wikimedia community to help in translating this blog post into other languages, as well as people’s feedback given throughout the course of this consultation period.]

Notes

1. ↑ [1] Special thanks to the Tech and LCA teams for their help on this initiative, with a special call out to Tiffany Li, Legal Intern, for her assistance on this blog post.
   

(more…)

This post is available in 2 languages:

Español  • English

English

Last week, news outlets published information about a U.S. government internet surveillance program called PRISM^[1] that reportedly enables the U.S. government to directly collect personal information from the servers of certain U.S.-based service providers.^[2] Most of the service providers that were allegedly involved have denied participating in PRISM,^[3] but President Obama appears to have acknowledged and defended the existence of the program.

Uncertainty and open questions persist about the nature and scope of PRISM. These public reports, and the conflicts among them, have raised concerns in the Wikimedia community, including at the Wikimedia Foundation.

Where we stand

The Wikimedia Foundation has not received requests or legal orders to participate in PRISM, to comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), or to participate in or facilitate any secret intelligence surveillance program. We also have not “changed” our systems to make government surveillance easier, as the New York Times has claimed is the case for some service providers.^[4]

Why we care

Freedom of speech and access to information are core Wikimedia values. These values can be compromised by surveillance: editors and readers understandably are less willing to write and inform themselves as honestly and freely. Put simply, “rights of privacy are necessary for intellectual freedom.”

In addition, while PRISM is a United States government program, the global nature of internet traffic, and the alleged sharing of surveillance information between governments, means that Internet users around the world are potentially affected. Because of this, we feel an obligation to our entire global community of contributors and readers to further understand (and possibly respond to) this issue.

Consultation and action

Because of the many open questions about PRISM, and the potential importance of this issue to our core values, we feel it is appropriate to consult with the Wikimedia community about what next steps we might take.^[5] In our opinion, governments must be transparent to their publics. This transparency is essential to our ability (and that of other like-minded organizations) to determine whether a legal or constitutional challenge is appropriate in a case like this.

Mozilla, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, and the Center for Democracy and Technology, among many others, have begun to work together on this issue. They have started by preparing an open letter to the U.S. Congress, calling for transparency, investigation, reform, and accountability, and have asked individuals and other interested organizations—like the Wikimedia Foundation—to join them.

As we see it, we have an important role to play in helping ensure protections for free expression and access to information as it relates to our mission.  We accordingly feel that the Wikimedia Foundation should collaborate with these organizations, and possibly others, and join in their effort to demand that the government account for and explain its internet surveillance programs.

That said, we want to hear from you on these topics before we take any action. Should we join with these organizations in their public statements and efforts as they relate to the Wikimedia community’s values and mission? Please leave your thoughts at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PRISM. We will consider all feedback, but, because events are moving quickly, we feel we need to make a decision on this by June 21, 2013.^[6]

With our thanks,
Geoff Brigham
General Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation^[7]

[We are professionally translating this blog post and feedback page into German, French, Spanish and Japanese and hope to post by Tuesday.  With our appreciation, we ask the international Wikimedia community to help in translating this blog post and the feedback page (which are almost the same) into other languages, as well as people’s feedback given throughout the course of this consultation period.]

Notes

1. ↑ The Washington Post and The Guardian broke the story on June 6.
2. ↑An early report alleged remarkable breadth of data accessible under the program. CNET has since reported, however, that the program at least involves some formalized and particularized process.
   
3. ↑ TechCrunch has published denials from eight allegedly-involved organizations.
   
4. ↑ Surveillance is possible without our cooperation. As a result, snooping on general internet traffic by governments or others may affect our contributors and readers. To help block this, Wikimedia sites are already reachable under HTTPS, and installing HTTPS Everywhere makes this the default. We are working toward increasingly making HTTPS the default both for readers and logged-in users without the need to install an extension. Updates will be posted to our engineering blog.
   
5. ↑ As you may know, the Wikimedia community worked with the Wikimedia Foundation to put together a policy on the Foundation’s association with certain political or policy issues. It applies when, among other things, the Wikimedia Foundation seeks to collaborate with other organizations to take action on a particular policy or political question.  Under this policy, community consultation is highly valued.
   
6. ↑This proposal is intended only to address the participation of the Wikimedia Foundation and is not intended to restrict other Wikimedians from acting in their personal capacity.
   
7. ↑Special thanks to the entire LCA team for their hard work in helping research and draft this blog post, with my special appreciation to Luis Villa, Deputy General Counsel; Matthew Collins, Legal Intern; and Stephen LaPorte, Legal Counsel.
   

(more…)

This post is available in 2 languages:

Español  • English

English

The Legal and Community Advocacy team is seeking community feedback on the Wikimedia trademark policy and practices, and ways in which they can be improved. In the trademark practices discussion, we point out some concerns with the current policy, what we think works well today, and raise some practical improvements that we feel would benefit everyone interested in our marks. Now, please tell us what you think.

We appreciate and welcome all points of view. The LCA team’s history of community involvement on Wikimedia policies shows innumerable member contributions that have steered our policies and practices.^[1] This time, we’re asking for comments as we consider drafting a new policy. The community’s early involvement will guide our course of action in this process from its first stages. We are looking forward to a collaborative, interactive, and international conversation.

Trademark rights function to protect the goodwill of our community’s efforts against harmful uses by third parties. Such uses at best confuse users as to Wikimedia’s involvement in a website, app, or other product. At worst, they willfully deceive users and undermine our values of openness and independence. We are tasked with simultaneously maintaining our marks’ effectiveness for the movement’s myriad uses and furthering these values.

The current trademark policy seeks to balance these interests. It welcomes trademark use by many members of our community, who can make use of the Wikimedia marks in a variety of ways without the need for permission. Further, we are eager to approve uses that require permission, provided they are consistent with our mission. Uses that conflict with the Wikimedia values – say, the use of our marks to sell counterfeit prescription drugs – are not permitted and, if necessary, are fought by our legal team. And our legal team works to protect our community’s rights abroad, where the territorial nature of trademark law could allow a third party to preclude local use by the movement if we do not remain vigilant.

However, our current policy is under stress from several directions. We must be sure to avoid “naked licensing,” where trademarks are found invalid because of a lack of quality control. At the same time, the community’s efforts continue to expand in size and scope.  We must ensure licensing is a frictionless process. All throughout, we must uphold our community values and protect the goodwill of those very values that are expressed through our marks.

The discussion touches on these, and many more specific, issues around our trademark policy and practices. So far, we have seen discussions on community logos, use of the marks by bloggers and news organizations, and the practicalities of trademark licensing for our diverse and decentralized community.  These issues and any others around the use of our marks are a part of this early-stage conversation. We hope that community involvement at this point in time will ensure that the final policy reflects the issues most important to the Wikimedia community.

Feel free to leave your comments on the discussion page, which we hope will serve as a sounding board for sentiment regarding our trademark policy and practices. The legal team is grateful for the opportunity to hear your thoughts and benefit from your knowledge and perspective. We will review your comments and take them into consideration as we contemplate drafting a new policy for further community comment.

We anticipate closing the comment period in a few months. However, we value international participation and, if more time is needed to allow for translations (and please, help in these efforts) or comments, we will take that into consideration.

We appreciate and look forward to your thoughts.

Matthew Collins, Legal Intern, Wikimedia Foundation
Yana Welinder, Legal Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation

1. ↑ Our discussions on the proposed terms of use, conflict of interest guidelines, political and policy affiliation guidelines, and legal fees assistance program all featured robust community participation.

(more…)

As part of the Wikimedia movement, there are entities such as chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation, thematic organizations, and user groups, established to support our shared global mission of freely sharing educational content. With the growth of these organizations comes a need for “good governance” — a recognition that movement entities are stewards for our contributors, donors and developers, who generously donate their time, expertise and money to promote the Wikimedia movement. Our organizations are called upon to use resources efficiently and carry out official positions for the benefit of the community. When they do not, they hurt the trust of the movement.

Last month, the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK announced the release of the final report and recommendations regarding the governance of Wikimedia UK. The review was conducted by Compass Partnership, a noted management consultant company with particular expertise in evaluating nonprofit organizations. Although the report includes highly specific recommendations to be implemented by Wikimedia UK, as a whole, it suggests several foundational themes that may be broadly applicable to all movement organizations. Each of us (including myself) who holds positions entrusted by our community may benefit from the learnings of the report. The following ones are worth consideration by all of us in Wikimedia organizations.

• Maintain Respect and Professionalism. According to the UK report, strong and effective relationships are an essential ingredient of any movement involving multiple organizations in dispersed territories and cultures. To foster effective relations among Wikimedia groups, the report recommends that communications within the movement be respectful and professional. It also suggests that this tone should be set and modeled by those in entrusted positions in the movement – such as trustees, executives and employees. We need not avoid controversy and disagreement, but respectful and professional behavior benefits the community as a whole. It ensures we are talking about and solving issues that benefit the community in a constructive, objective and productive way.^[1]
• Keep Roles Within the Movement Separate from Your Personal Interests. The report suggests that, to best serve the movement, community members should keep their Wikimedia organizational roles separate from their own personal interests. For example, a trustee should never use that position within the movement to advance their own financial interest. Similarly, when individuals within the movement are acting in their personal capacity, for their own benefit, they should not rely on their Wikimedia title or office in any way, and they should be clear about it.^[2]
• Be Transparent With Regard to Conflicts of Interest and Cooperate in Resolving Them. As many of you may know, the WMF Board is currently considering the proposed “Guidelines on the Disclosure of Potential and Actual Conflicts of Interest in Requesting Movement Resources,” which were developed through a six-week consultation period with the community. The guidelines encourage community members to disclose actively their potential conflicts of interest when requesting Wikimedia resources, and also provide guidance regarding (1) what circumstances may constitute a conflict of interest, and (2) when to disclose such circumstances to the appropriate decision-maker within the movement. The community’s efforts to improve the handling of conflicts of interest are recognized in the UK report. The report specifically discusses these guidelines and highlights their value in providing a framework for the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest so that they may be fully evaluated and managed.

  The UK report explains that, in a charitable organization, the highest standards should be followed in managing conflicts. If an employee, officer or trustee of a movement entity believes there is any possibility that they present a potential or actual conflict of interest, this should be raised immediately with the appropriate decision-maker. Furthermore, the employee, officer, or trustee should be forthcoming and transparent with regard to all relevant facts, so the appropriate decision-maker may fully assess the potential conflict.^[3]

• Go Beyond the Minimum Requirements of Law. Finally, the report recognizes that the demands and values of the worldwide Wikimedia movement call for us all to hold ourselves to the highest standard, going beyond the basic legal requirements.

  The WMF Board encouraged as much in its Resolution on Organizational Best Practices, suggesting that “every organization in our movement must go beyond local regulatory requirements and adopt our movement’s unique principles and best practices around governance, transparency, and accountability.” In the words of the Board, movement resources should be used “to achieve the highest possible impact in the pursuit of our vision.”^[4]

By considering these principles as they may apply to us individually, or the particular Wikimedia entities that we serve, we all have the opportunity to embrace our values while supporting a Wikimedia movement that mandates the highest of standards. As I believe we all agree, our community deserves nothing less.

Geoff Brigham, General Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation

Notes:

1. ↑ For Compass Partnership’s specific recommendations on respectful and professional communication, see Recommendation 4.4, paragraph 43; Recommendation 4.5, introductory paragraph; and Recommendation 4.5, paragraph 46 of the final report.
2. ↑ For Compass Partnership’s specific recommendations on separating one’s Wikimedia position from one’s personal interests, see Recommendation 4.4, paragraphs 27, 30, and 41 of the final report.
3. ↑ For Compass Partnership’s specific recommendations on transparency and the management of conflicts of interest, see Recommendation 4.4,, paragraphs 26, 27, and 29; and Recommendation 4.5, paragraph 48 of the final report.
4. ↑ For Compass Partnership’s specific recommendations on going beyond the minimum requirements of law, see the Introduction of the final report.

In this posting, we would like to share with you WMF’s practice going forward on the use of the Wikimedia trademarks for QR code-based or “Wikitown” projects. In the past, these projects have required negotiated trademark licenses with third parties like museums and towns. As some of you may be aware, we had been awaiting the results of the UK Wikimedia governance review, which was expected to address, in part, requests to WMF from two QR code projects using Wikimedia trademarks, Monmouthpedia and Gilbraltarpedia. That report has now been issued, and we have examined more closely our past practices and have assessed our resource capabilities. In light of this evaluation, we will continue to allow nominative, non-stylized use of the “Wikipedia” word mark, though we will not license other Wikimedia trademarks, like the stylized “Wikipedia” wordmark or the Wikipedia puzzle globe logo, to third-party organizations and governments in these cases. We set out some of our reasons below.

First, some quick background on QR codes (familiar to many of you, no doubt). A QR code is a type of barcode that can be scanned by a mobile device to quickly pull up encoded data, text and URLs. A display with a QR code may provide a short explanation to users of what the code will do and access, explaining essentially why the user should use the scan. For some, such a descriptive explanation, known as a “call-to-action,” may fall under certain QR code best practices.

QR code-based Wikipedia-inspired projects in museums, towns, and landmark sites often depend on a service to create QR codes (such as QRpedia) to redirect users to Wikipedia articles about objects or places of interest on their smartphones.[1] “Wikitowns” are towns or cities that place QR code plaques near that town’s notable locations to allow users to scan QR codes linking to relevant Wikipedia articles.

With this understanding, WMF will allow for “nominative” use of the non-stylized wordmark “Wikipedia” for QR code-based Wikipedia-inspired projects. That is, WMF will permit a plaque or label to make truthful nominative use of the word “Wikipedia” and display the text of the non-stylized word “Wikipedia” in a call-to-action. By “non-stylized,” we refer to the plain text version of the word “Wikipedia,” not the stylized version shown here.  That call-to-action may explain that the QR code will retrieve a Wikipedia article. Nominative use may include depiction of the non-stylized word “Wikipedia” within the context of a URL (such as shown here).[2] This limited use will not require a trademark license from WMF.

This practice is not uncommon within our community. For example, The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis – which was a GLAM project – displays QR code plaques with the non-stylized but descriptive phrase “Wikipedia article”:

The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis QR Code Plaque

The Derby Museum and Art Gallery – another GLAM project – does not display any text on the QR plaques themselves, but rather posts QR code instructions in various locations throughout the museum utilizing the non-stylized word “Wikipedia,” as seen in the image below:

Derby Museum QR Code Instruction

In short, these “nominative” uses are allowed, but displaying Wikimedia trademarks, such as the stylized version of the “Wikipedia” wordmark or the Wikipedia puzzle globe logo, will not be permitted. We are also unable to permit incorporating elements of our brand’s visual identity (such as the stylized font and the capitalized “A”) to third-party project logos. We believe that displaying the non-stylized, nominative use version of the word mark “Wikipedia” is enough to enable QR code projects to accurately describe their links and to ensure the success of the projects.

Our primary reason for this decision is limited team resources. Simply put, the growth of QR code projects and Wikitowns – which are principally off-site projects – has begun to stretch our capacity to offer trademark licenses to these projects. Our movement’s logos have earned a favorable place in the public consciousness over the years through the hard work of the Wikimedia community, and trademark license agreements are necessary to enable us to protect the Wikimedia projects’ reputation and goodwill. But the process can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. After negotiating a trademark agreement with a third party organization or municipality, WMF must also ensure a mechanism to oversee ongoing compliance with our movement’s high standards and values, and ensure that the third-party use continues to reflect positively on the hard work of Wikimedia contributors. As we continue to see new QR code projects in an ever-expanding pool of museums, historical sites, cities, and towns, we are not able to continue to individually evaluate, draft and negotiate licenses for these projects, as well as to monitor the conditions over the lifetime of the project.[3]

In summary, the truthful limited “nominative” use of the Wikipedia word mark strikes a balance between: (1) the need to describe and identify the Wikipedia content accessed by QR codes for projects such as Wikitowns; and (2) the need to use WMF resources most efficiently against a number of competing priority issues and initiatives within the movement and the Foundation. As always, we thank the volunteer community for its enthusiasm, its dedication and its continuing cooperation as it builds one of the most recognized global brands identified with free information and open licensing.

Geoff Brigham, General Counsel
Rubina Kwon, Counsel

Footnotes

[1] Please note that the Wikimedia Foundation does not own or endorse QRpedia or any other QR code system. We encourage QR code systems that incorporate Wikimedia content to comply with applicable privacy, intellectual property and other laws. Nominative use of the word “Wikipedia” should never imply endorsement, ownership or responsibility by the Wikimedia Foundation for the use of a particular QR code system or its software.

[2] Of course, any nominative use cannot violate provisions of the WMF trademark policy.

[3] We also have learned about the involvement of paid consultancies in the context of QR codes and Wikipedia. WMF is not resourced to distinguish between trademark demands from paid consultants as opposed to those from full volunteers on these projects. We do note however that anybody requesting movement resources (including trademark licenses) from WMF, Wikimedia chapters or other movement entities must immediately and actively disclose the nature and extent of his or her financial interest to the decision-maker at the time of any request for those resources. See, e.g., Guidelines on the Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest in Requesting Movement Resources; Recommendations 29, 30, and 47 of the Review of Governance of Wikimedia UK.

Settlement of litigation between Internet Brands and the Wikimedia Foundation

Today we are pleased to announce a settlement in the legal proceedings between the Wikimedia Foundation and Internet Brands relating to issues stemming from the creation of Wikivoyage, our community’s newest free knowledge project. We regard this settlement as a victory for the Wikimedia movement, and a vindication of our values and beliefs.

Our community expressed a strong desire to create a new, freely shareable, non-commercial travel wiki project. In response, Internet Brands (owners of a for-profit wiki-based travel project) sued two Wikimedians visibly involved in supporting the travel wiki project. Internet Brands branded the proposed new site an “Infringing Website” and claimed that the volunteers were acting “for the benefit of the Wikimedia Foundation” to “usurp” the community of users of Internet Brands’ site and taking actions that included “deliberately misleading statements, and Trademark infringement and violation of Internet Brands’ intellectual property rights.” Internet Brands identified the “Wikimedia Foundation, members of its Board, and other members of the Foundation” as potential “co-conspirators” who were “corrupt in this scheme”.

Unintimidated, the Foundation moved in to defend our volunteers and to protect our community’s right to an open and meaningful discussion about the project.

We contacted one of the most respected law firms working in this field, Cooley LLP, and asked that they represent and defend the two volunteers facing legal action from Internet Brands. Cooley was engaged, and with our financial support, the volunteers moved the case to federal court and also filed an anti-SLAPP motion against Internet Brands, alleging that their freedom to openly discuss the project was under threat. Internet Brands responded by abandoning its federal claim, essentially admitting it had no factual basis. The federal court then dismissed all of Internet Brands’ remaining claims.

Meanwhile, in September 2012 the Wikimedia Foundation filed its own lawsuit against Internet Brands seeking a declaration from the court that Internet Brands had no proper basis to block the travel wiki project.

The settlement was signed on February 14, 2013, and Internet Brands has now released the Foundation and Wikivoyage e.V. (the German not for profit who worked so hard to make the project a success) from any and all claims related in any manner to the creation and operation of the travel wiki project. In return, the Foundation will dismiss the suit.

Wikivoyage is now officially launched and growing, with about 9000 new entries added in the first month, and new language versions in Polish, Romanian, Finnish, Hungarian, Chinese and Japanese being opened.

The Wikimedia Foundation believes there is enough room for multiple travel sites to co-exist, and for community members to contribute to multiple sites in this area. Our Executive Director, Sue Gardner, outlined this perspective in a post to the original travel project discussion. We have stood by this belief from the beginning, and we believe that a successful, freely-shareable, non-commercial travel project will help support the overall quantity and quality of travel information on the web.

We thank and recognize our global community of volunteers, particularly the pioneers of the Wikivoyage project for their dedication and focus in making the project possible. I want to thank my colleagues at the Foundation in many different departments for their hard work on this case. We are also grateful to our friends at Cooley LLP for their continuous support, tireless dedication, and outstanding legal counsel through these challenges.

It’s now possible for the Wikivoyage community to continue their efforts to build a global free-knowledge travel site unhindered. We wish them the best of luck and look forward to working closely with the Wikivoyage community as the project grows and thrives.

Geoff Brigham, General Counsel

Today the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK  are announcing the release of the final report and recommendations regarding the governance of the Wikimedia UK chapter. The report was completed by Compass Partnership, consultants in non-profit management based in the UK. The report was commissioned jointly by the Foundation and Wikimedia UK in October 2012 following important Wikimedia community discussions about potential conflicts of interest arising from a series of wiki outreach projects.

The Foundation and Wikimedia UK saw the potentially damaging effect of these matters and we ordered this review and report. We both expect the highest standards of governance, and this report is an effort to chart a strong course for Wikimedia UK and also thoughtful and valuable counsel for any organization in our movement to consider.

The report discusses important conclusions based on discussions with and materials provided by all of the major stakeholders. The aim of the report is not to lay blame, rather it seeks to determine if pre-existing policies and practices around conflicts of interest and governance were sufficient. Through this report we also aim to lay the groundwork for better and stronger governance for Wikimedia UK in the future and for its development as a chapter in our movement. We also believe the report may benefit the wider community of Wikimedia affiliated organizations by providing an example of best practices around governance and decision-making as applied to a chapter.

With a clear list of recommendations and timeline for their implementation, Wikimedia UK is now in a position to improve and expand its policies and procedures, related not just to the  management of conflict of interest but also its management structure. The chapter will be discussing the findings with the community and begin their implementation at their forthcoming Trustee meeting in February.

We would like to thank everyone who has supported this process over the past three months, including the authors of the report, Compass Partnership, the staff and trustees of WMUK and the Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikimedia community members who shared their insights and feedback about the whole process.

You can read the review findings here and the chronology of the events here

Questions and answers regarding the report are posted here. A community discussion page on Meta wiki has also been created.

As many in the Wikimedia community are aware, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors recently approved the creation of new models of affiliation known as thematic organizations and user groups. Thematic organizations are incorporated independent nonprofits that will support work focusing on a specific topic area within or across countries, regions and languages with certain permissions to use WMF marks. User groups are open membership groups which are granted limited use of Wikimedia marks for publicity related to events and projects. Both types of entities are unprecedented structures within the movement, and have the potential to move our mission forward in constructive and innovative ways.

One important feature of the new movement entity is the name under which it will operate, which is a key means for how it will present itself not just to the Wikimedia community but to the public. You can find my initial thoughts on naming the Thematic organizations talk page here and I’ve elaborated on those thoughts here. Other views can be found elsewhere on the talk page.

The new entities will help represent the movement and so the decisions we make in these initial stages may be of interest to many. In recognition of the fact that our community consists of many thoughtful and diverse voices, we invite and encourage everyone to participate in the discussion on naming models for new entities.

Geoff Brigham, General Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation

Wikimedia community members are encouraged to offer comments and suggestions for proposed new guidelines relating to conflicts of interest. These guidelines, which we hope to present to the Wikimedia Foundation Board for adoption, would establish the minimum standards to be upheld by everyone who requests Wikimedia movement resources, such as grants or permission to use WMF trademarks.

All community input is appreciated, and we anticipate incorporating many suggestions into the final guidelines. Our goal is that these guidelines will ensure that people proactively disclose potential conflicts related to their requests, so that decisions related to the allocation of movement resources can be made fairly and objectively.[1]

Generally, mismanaged personal interests resulting in potential conflicts of interest can hurt our movement, both in reputation and financially. The proposed guidelines seek to encourage full disclosure of personal and financial interests with respect to people’s requests for movement resources. The guidelines help ensure that those movement resources — like grants, staff time, scholarships, trademark licenses, travel reimbursements, fellowships, employment, and conference resources — are used in pursuit of our mission. The guidelines apply to requests for resources from movement entities, groups, associations, or persons, such as the Wikimedia Foundation, chapters, thematic organizations, movement partners, user groups, Wiki Loves Monuments, GLAM organizations and Wikipedians in Residence. The guidelines are not comprehensive or exhaustive. They are intended to support existing movement values and conflict of interest policies, which may require recusal or other ways of managing the conflict.[2]

Importantly, the guidelines are not intended to directly address more specific controversial topics, like paid editing. We understand that the community is engaged in that discussion in other venues. That said, these guidelines may serve as a foundation upon which to build more specific policies in the future. For now, however, we simply want to suggest some simple–hopefully uncontroversial–guidelines to help people know when they should be disclosing their personal or financial interests in their requests for and use of movement resources.

We would like to hear what you think. Feel free to leave your comments or propose edits on the meta discussion page. We are not seeking consensus or an RfC. This is to help us hear where we need to improve the document. To help ensure global understanding and easier translations, we are proposing that the guidelines be short and confined to one page. The WMF legal department greatly appreciates the opportunity to hear your thoughts and benefit from your wisdom there. We of course will read and respond to your comments and take them into consideration in drafting a final version for proposal to the Board.

We anticipate closing the comment period on January 15, 2013. This may allow for a proposal to the Board during its meeting on February 1-2, 2013. Otherwise, we may extend the comment period and ask the Board to approve the guidelines at another time. We encourage international participation, and, if more time is needed to allow for translations or comments, we want to take that into consideration.

Many thanks, as always, for your comments and active participation.

Geoff Brigham, General Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation

1. For further discussion of the context in which these new guidelines are being proposed, refer to the December 24th edition of The Signpost, which can be read here.
2. In the WMF Board’s resolution regarding organizational best practices, for example, “more developed organizations” are encouraged to “adopt core governance policies including a code of conduct for Board and staff that requires at least disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest.” Movement organizations, of course, are free to adopt more strict and tailored conflict of interest rules that go beyond the minimum standards of these proposed guidelines.

On December 7, 2012, Internet Brands filed a reply brief in support of its demurrer (“motion to dismiss”) to the Wikimedia Foundation’s state court complaint. A copy of the reply brief can be found here. On December 11, 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation objected to Internet Brands’s reply brief on the grounds that it was improperly filed. Among other things, the Wikimedia Foundation alleged that Internet Brands filed its brief 28 days after the deadline to do so, and 21 days after the Court had already issued a tentative ruling in the Wikimedia Foundation’s favor. Accordingly, the Wikimedia Foundation asked the Court to disregard Internet Brands’s reply brief and strike it from the record. A copy of the Wikimedia Foundation’s objection can be found here.

On December 14, 2012, the Court overruled Internet Brands’ demurrer (“motion to dismiss”), finding that the Wikimedia Foundation’s complaint was “properly pled.” A copy of the Court’s December 14, 2012 order can be found here. As a result of the Court’s ruling, Internet Brands must now answer the Wikimedia Foundation’s complaint. Internet Brands must file its answer to the complaint within ten (10) days of its receipt of notice of the Court’s ruling.

Geoff Brigham, General Counsel