🐈
» Forums » Freelancers » Wikipedia compliance and wikipedia name disc...
Page options
f22f5c82
Community Member

Wikipedia compliance and wikipedia name disclosure

Hi, everyone! I'm a top plus freelancer  from the US  doing mostly Wikipedia-related tasks and translations. 

 

I'm a bit disturbed by my recent experience on Upwork. I was recently contacted by the Upwork Escalation Team and was asked to disclose my Wikipedia profile name and also pronounce myself a "Wikipedia Paid Editor". Here is the message I received:

 

**Edited for community guidelines**

 

After some correspondence, I complied and now I have the disclosure on my Upwork main profile. 

 

Here comes the most interesting part. When I started to check other top Wikipedia freelancers here:

**Edited for community guidelines**

and here:

**Edited for community guidelines**

I found that only me and one more freelancer -

**Edited for community guidelines**

actually disclosed their Wikipedia account identity and the fact of doing Wikipedia paid editing. 

 

So, my question is why I'm the only one (plus another freelancer) who was made to comply with that rule? It doesn't look fair to me unless every Upwork freelancer doing Wikipedia tasks does the same thing. 

I'd like to hear from the community specialists and especially from the Upwork management how this policy applies universally on Upwork. 

The major reason for my question is that the disclosure might negatively impact my earnings here on Upwork as most of my clients require confidentiality for their projects. So, now I feel like  having a clear competition disadvantage in comparison to the other Wikipedia freelancer on Upwork which makes me feel discriminated. 

23 REPLIES 23
JoanneP
Moderator
Moderator

Hi Vyacheslav,

 

I can see that you already have a ticket regarding this concern. I'll follow-up with the team about this.

~ Joanne
Upwork
f22f5c82
Community Member

Hello, Joanne! Can you share the link to the ticket, please? All I found is the old closed ticket not telated to my question here. 

Hi Vyacheslav,

 

You can access the ticket you are referring to directly on this link.

 

Thank you.

~ Aleksandar
Upwork

Alexandr, this is a deadlink that shows "problem solved" related to my disclosure of being  a "paid Wikipedia editor". This ticket appeared before I placed my question on this forum  and was related to me being complying. It was "solved" yesterday after I complied and I don't understand how it is related to my questions on this forum. 

lysis10
Community Member

What's the high/low on someone from Wikipedia contacted Upwork about the paid Wikipedia jobs on Upwork?


Jennifer M wrote:

What's the high/low on someone from Wikipedia contacted Upwork about the paid Wikipedia jobs on Upwork?


As I already suggested, I wouldn't be at all surprised. What [initially surprised] me is Upwork's responding with any sense of obligation toward another site's internal policies. Somebody's lawyers must have been waving a very big stick.

 

[edited to add:] I see that Wikipedia has expanded its obligations on its editors to do additional disclosures off its site. Wikipedia has its own enforcement mechanisms, of course, but I suppose Upwork sees every banned editor as lost revenue, so...

jr-translation
Community Member

Wikipadia ToU:

Screenshot_2021-03-18 Terms of Use - Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki.png
If Upwork decides that you have to disclose your Wikipedia profile name to make sure they comply with the ToS, you and all the others have to do so. After all Wikipedia is a non-profit organization.

Clearly the rule will have to apply to everyone, but it takes time to get around to everyone.

 

The other option would be to forbid any Wikipedia jobs on Upwork.

researchediting
Community Member


Vyacheslav B wrote:

....I was recently contacted by the Upwork Escalation Team and was asked to disclose my Wikipedia profile name and also pronounce myself a "Wikipedia Paid Editor". Here is the message I received:

 

**Edited for community guidelines**

 

After some correspondence, I complied and now I have the disclosure on my Upwork main profile. 

 

Here comes the most interesting part. When I started to check other top Wikipedia freelancers here:

**Edited for community guidelines**

and here:

**Edited for community guidelines**

I found that only me and one more freelancer -

**Edited for community guidelines**

actually disclosed their Wikipedia account identity and the fact of doing Wikipedia paid editing. 

....

The major reason for my question is that the disclosure might negatively impact my earnings here on Upwork as most of my clients require confidentiality for their projects. So, now I feel like  having a clear competition disadvantage in comparison to the other Wikipedia freelancer on Upwork which makes me feel discriminated. 


I'm confused. Is Upwork requiring/enforcing explicit disclosure of paid status on Upwork? Why?

 

How is that in any way either Upwork's responsibility, or freelancers'? If Upwork allows Wikipedia jobs, and freelancers take and execute them, how is it not perfectly clear that those freelancers are paid editors? Why should it be necessary to state that explicitly on Upwork, apart from the job history?

 

As a very occasional volunteer editor on Wikipedia—who avoids paid work so as not to jeopardize my status as a volunteer—none of this makes any sense to me.

 

I also fail to see how any of this affects a freelancer's competitive status or hirability. Again, if a client is looking to hire someone for a Wikipedia job, how can they expect to hire anyone but a paid editor? If they're worried about confidentiality, Upwork does not require them to disclose their identity. Whether they identify themselve or not, the payment relationship shows up in the job history. Mandating a "disclosure" in freelancers' Upwork profiles seems pointlessly redundant.

 

Could Upwork be responding to overreaching pressure from Wikipedia?

 Michael M wrote:

Could Upwork be responding to overreaching pressure from Wikipedia?


Michael, I would hazard a guess that the only alternative would be to ban all Wikipedia jobs.

Upwork does not allow any jobs that violate the terms of another site. So this would ultimately be the compromise. By forcing Wikipedia editors to disclose, Upwork are seen to be doing something, so they don't have to stop the entire Wikipedia niche.


Petra R wrote:
 Michael M wrote:

Could Upwork be responding to overreaching pressure from Wikipedia?


Michael, I would hazard a guess that the only alternative would be to ban all Wikipedia jobs.

Upwork does not allow any jobs that violate the terms of another site. So this would ultimately be the compromise.


I'm not seeing any violation. No one has said they are not disclosing on the Wikipedia site, which is what their ToS requires. Nothing about their ToS requires disclosure elsewhere.


Douglas Michael M wrote:

Petra R wrote:
 Michael M wrote:

Could Upwork be responding to overreaching pressure from Wikipedia?


Michael, I would hazard a guess that the only alternative would be to ban all Wikipedia jobs.

Upwork does not allow any jobs that violate the terms of another site. So this would ultimately be the compromise.


I'm not seeing any violation. No one has said they are not disclosing on the Wikipedia site, which is what their ToS requires. Nothing about their ToS requires disclosure elsewhere.


I shared the segment of the ToU above.

4. Refraining from Certain Activities

The Projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation only exist because of the vibrant community of users like you who collaborate to write, edit, and curate the content. We happily welcome your participation in this community. We encourage you to be civil and polite in your interactions with others in the community, to act in good faith, and to make edits and contributions aimed at furthering the mission of the shared Project.

Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include:
[...]

Paid contributions without disclosure These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

  • a statement on your user page,
  • a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
  • a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Upwork just added the option to fullfil these obligations. Paid contributions to a free encyclopedia usually some kind of propaganda under the disguise of credibility.

You need to keep in mind the more you write on Wikipedia the hire you rank and the more rights you have. So if you hire a "new" editor to get you on Wikipedia it might get removed while a senior editor can basically publish anything they like. I have been observing this for a while now on the German Wikipedia.

Jennifer R: As I've said, every single one of those disclosure requirements you quote refers to disclosure on the Wikipedia site. Upwork has added nothing to support those requirements, nor should it.

However, Valeria has provided the new language placing an obligation on editors. Apparently Upwork is attempting to facilitate/promote compliance for those editors. As I comment further along, though, it's not at all clear that what they are asking/enforcing from editors is what Wikipedia requires of editors.

This was exactly my point. My top plus account was put on hold yesterday for a few hours until I comply with the disclosure of me being Piad editor plus I had to add my Wikipedia profile name. And now I see other top Wikipedia freelancers with no disclosures. This makes me upset and feeling discriminated. 

My questions:

1) Why this policy is applied selectively? Wasn't Upwork Escalation Team supposed to send the same letter to all Wikipedia freelancers and get them comply by a certain date? Because I received my letter with the remark "URGENT!!!" two weeks ago. Why other to Upwork Wikipedia freelancers have not disclosed at the same time? Just take a look at the "top wikipedia freelancers on Upwork" and you will see. 

2) How exactly Upwork must comply with what other organizations such as Wikipedia require? The Upwork is a business  technology company and Wikipedia is a nonprofit organization, each with its own rules. Both are the US-registered entitites not related to each others and no US laws are violated here. 

3) How exactly Wikipedia freelancers might violate "Terms and Conditions" on Upwork if they do not disclose their "Paid editing" and why it was all fine for years until now? 

 

 

re: "Why this policy is applied selectively?"

 

By definition, every policy everywhere is applied selectively if we are simply talking about things being imperfect.

 

Ultimately, it is impossible for Upwork to implement and enforce EVERY POLICY perfectly.

 

Two people shoplifted a six-pack from a grocery store. One was caught. The other was not caught. The thief who was caught can not ask for leniency becaus his friend was not caught. The policy was applied "selectively" simply because one person wasn't caught.

 

I am NOT comparing following Wikipedia guidelines to shoplifting. I am simply making the point that this matter is not about "selectively" applying a policy.

 

The focus here should be whether or not this should be a policy at all.

 

Wikipedia users SHOULD follow Wikipedia rules.

Upwork users SHOULD follow Upwork rules.

This is NOT about "U.S. laws" being violated.

Different websites can establish different rules.

For example: Upwork requires freelancers to post photos of themselves. This is an Upwork rule, not a U.S. law.

 

I am not a Wikipedia ToS expert.

 

But I believe it is VERY POSSIBLE that there has been a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia's rules require and how that is being applied on Upwork.

 

If Wikipedia requires that paid editors identify themselves on their Wikipedia profile page ("user page"), then that does not mean an Upwork user needs to identify himself as a "paid" freelancer on their Upwork profile page.

 

ALL Upwork freelancers are, by definition, paid for the work they are hired to do through Upwork.

 

But if Wikipedia is specifically asking Upwork to make some changes, that is Wikipedia's right to do so, and it is Upwork's right to comply with that request. Maybe Wikipedia's people are not asking Upwork to ban Wikipedia-related jobs, but they simply want some minor modifications, such as asking that the phrase "paid editor" appear on a freelancer's profile page. Or they're asking that profiles include the freelancer's Wikipedia username. These are reasonable requests that do not place an undue burden on Upwork. If there are Upwork freelancers whose profile pages the original poster has viewed which do not comply with these modifications, I'm certain that it is not due to Upwork or Wikipedia having a personal desire to "discriminate" against the original poster.


Vyacheslav B wrote:

This was exactly my point. My top plus account was put on hold yesterday for a few hours until I comply with the disclosure of me being Piad editor plus I had to add my Wikipedia profile name. And now I see other top Wikipedia freelancers with no disclosures. This makes me upset and feeling discriminated. 

My questions:

1) Why this policy is applied selectively? Wasn't Upwork Escalation Team supposed to send the same letter to all Wikipedia freelancers and get them comply by a certain date? Because I received my letter with the remark "URGENT!!!" two weeks ago. Why other to Upwork Wikipedia freelancers have not disclosed at the same time? Just take a look at the "top wikipedia freelancers on Upwork" and you will see. 

2) How exactly Upwork must comply with what other organizations such as Wikipedia require? The Upwork is a business  technology company and Wikipedia is a nonprofit organization, each with its own rules. Both are the US-registered entitites not related to each others and no US laws are violated here. 

3) How exactly Wikipedia freelancers might violate "Terms and Conditions" on Upwork if they do not disclose their "Paid editing" and why it was all fine for years until now? 

 

 


I suggest, you flag all the profiles that do not disclose their Wikipedia identity.


Vyacheslav B wrote:

....

2) How exactly Upwork must comply with what other organizations such as Wikipedia require? The Upwork is a business  technology company and Wikipedia is a nonprofit organization, each with its own rules. Both are the US-registered entitites not related to each others and no US laws are violated here. 

3) How exactly Wikipedia freelancers might violate "Terms and Conditions" on Upwork if they do not disclose their "Paid editing" and why it was all fine for years until now? 


The nature of the two entities' business has nothing to do with this issue. Legality has nothing to do with it.

 

It has long (always?) been Upwork's policy that anything done on this platform that violates another site's terms of service also, ipso facto, violates Upwork's terms of service.

As Valeria pointed out, it was all fine until now because Wikipedia's requirement of its editors to disclose not only paid status but their profile page—not only internally but externally and in private communications—is new. Upwork, out of self-interest, has agreed to facilitate/police cooperation of Wikipedia editors with the Wikipedia ToS.

kochubei_valeria
Community Member

Hi Vyacheslav and others,

 

I'd like to clarify that the specific situation and the status of Vyacheslav's account has been addressed in the support ticket shared earlier by Aleksandar. However, Vyacheslav, if you have any follow up questions about your account, feel free to reply to the ticket and re-open it. 
In general, there have been recent updates to the requirements for paid editing disclosure on English Wikipedia that require paid editors to disclose the specific accounts with which they do their paid editing. You can refer to this page for more information. This requirement was sent to Upwork by Wikipedia and we are following through with their request in line with Upwork's TOS, thus helping to ensure no violations occur on platform.

~ Valeria
Upwork


Valeria K wrote:

Hi Vyacheslav and others,

 

I'd like to clarify that the specific situation and the status of Vyacheslav's account has been addressed in the support ticket shared earlier by Aleksandar. However, Vyacheslav, if you have any follow up questions about your account, feel free to reply to the ticket and re-open it. 
In general, there have been recent updates to the requirements for paid editing disclosure on English Wikipedia that require paid editors to disclose the specific accounts with which they do their paid editing. You can refer to this page for more information. This requirement was sent to Upwork by Wikipedia and we are following through with their request in line with Upwork's TOS, thus helping to ensure no violations occur on platform.


Thank you for the clarification.


Valeria K wrote:

Hi Vyacheslav and others,

 

I'd like to clarify that the specific situation and the status of Vyacheslav's account has been addressed in the support ticket shared earlier by Aleksandar. However, Vyacheslav, if you have any follow up questions about your account, feel free to reply to the ticket and re-open it. 
In general, there have been recent updates to the requirements for paid editing disclosure on English Wikipedia that require paid editors to disclose the specific accounts with which they do their paid editing. You can refer to this page for more information. This requirement was sent to Upwork by Wikipedia and we are following through with their request in line with Upwork's TOS, thus helping to ensure no violations occur on platform.


Thanks, Valeria.

 

According to the passage you cite, 

...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.

So is that what Upwork is requiring? Not a statement of being a paid editor, but a link to the editor's Wikipedia profile page? Because that's what it says. Will you also be monitoring client and prospect compliance on all actual or potential Wikipedia jobs?


Douglas Michael M wrote:
...

Thanks, Valeria.

 

According to the passage you cite, 

...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.

So is that what Upwork is requiring? Not a statement of being a paid editor, but a link to the editor's Wikipedia profile page? Because that's what it says. Will you also be monitoring client and prospect compliance on all actual or potential Wikipedia jobs?

Hi Michael,

 

That's a great question. We're asking freelancers to disclose they are paid editors on their profile as well as including their Wiki account information on their profile.

~ Vladimir
Upwork

Some of us may read the fine print on Wikipedia's site and think that what Upwork is doing is technically unnecessary.

 

But that is the decision that Upwork has made after talking with Wikipedia. This is fine. There is nothing at all onerous about these requirements.

 

This helps Upwork and Wikipedia be good corporate neighbors. This lets Upwork win by staying in Wikipedia's good graces. And this is a win for Wikipedia because their concerns and wishes have been fully addressed.

 

An Upwork freelancer who identifies himself as a paid Wikipedia editor and includes his Wikipedia profile information on his Upwork freelancer profile page sets himself apart as a legitimate Wikipedia professional. He is not just some random fly-by-night wannabe who may or may not understand how to use Wikipedia properly.

These are the people who Upwork clients should seek to hire. Hiring otherwise is risky.

Thanks for the response, Vladimir.

 

I don't want to go any deeper into the woods or the weeds than we already have, so I'll bow out of that part of the discussion, and assume Upwork and Wikipedia have a compatible understanding of what is expected at the corporate level.

 

Wikipedia editors who seek or accept such work via Upwork would seem to be well advised to bring themselves into compliance with Wikipedia's requirements as literally as Upwork's terms of service allow and direct. I expect there will be further discussion of just what forms those requirements take on the part of people more nearly touched by the question than I am.

Latest Articles
Featured Topics
Learning Paths