维基百科:维基媒体基金会针对付费编辑与公开使用者个人资料的公开声明

在维基百科上调查非公开的付费编辑，通常会涉及搜索维基百科外的身份资料。比方说招募打工网站上的工作清单、在公司网站上的真实身份、或可以连结第三方网站上的账户名称和身份，上述资讯都能提供证据，证明在维基百科上某位使用者进行了有利益冲突问题的维基百科编辑工作。这些调查的透明、公开记录，得以让其他使用者出付费编辑之间的关系，让累犯的行为曝光、也才能确保进行中调查的真诚性。

但另一方面，英文维基百科的骚扰政策规定（备注：中文维基百科也这么规定，但本文是翻译自英文的维基媒体基金会公开声明，故一切以原文直译），编辑者的个人资料不应在维基百科上被揭露，甚至连讨论一个人的其他笔名都可能引起争议，这在调查付费编辑或利益冲突这类问题的情况下时，调查人员应该只能私下以邮件的方式传递情报给管理员、仲裁委员会、或维基媒体基金会等单位的工作人员。

禁止公开个人资料的政策，与需要有效率调查非公开揭露付费编辑行为产生了冲突：认真负责的维基百科使用者，在进行调查并找到了违反付费编辑公开揭露的行为时，会想要知道有什么方式能够公开这些调查的同时，避免违反了禁止公开个人资料的政策。

维基媒体基金会的法务观点

WMF法律被要求澄清我们的角色在打击秘密支付编辑的项目，并提供我们的意见郊游与支付编辑调查的冲突。（WMF Legal has been asked to clarify our role in combating undisclosed paid editing on the projects and to provide our opinion on the outing vs. paid editing investigation conflict.）

首先，它应该明白我们的立场是咨询。隐私权政策适用于收集的数据由维基媒体基金会基金会的合作伙伴，通过一些用户在特殊角色（比如checkusers），或者通过一些第三方提供数据基础。它并不适用于公开可见的帖子上的用户项目或从其他网站收集的信息，后来发布的项目。因此，我们认为代表我们认为最好的方式来处理这些问题，但并不代表一个法律要求的项目。（First, it should be understood that our position here is advisory. The privacy policy applies to data collected by the Wikimedia Foundation, by Foundation partners, by some users in special roles (such as checkusers), or by some third parties who provide data to the Foundation. It does not apply to the publicly visible postings of users on the projects or to information collected from other websites and later posted to the projects. As such, our opinion represents our view of the best way to handle these issues, but does not represent a legal requirement for the projects.）

社群的角色

在我们看来，社区成员感兴趣的这些问题在保护项目中扮演最重要的角色。如果用户违反使用条款或任何其他政策,第一个行动是帮助教育用户，警告他们关于这个问题，或者封锁该用户。我们的角色在WMF法律来支持这些社区决策是必要的。我们的工具能够提供支持的社区行动，解决严重的情况下，和防止滥用Wikimedia商标。In our view, community members who are interested in these issues play the most important role in protecting the projects. If a user violates the Terms of Use or any other policy, the first course of action is to help educate the user, warn them about the issue, or block that user as appropriate. Our role in WMF Legal is to back up these community decisions as necessary. Our tools are able to provide support to community actions, address severe situations, and prevent misuse of the Wikimedia trademarks.）

我们还认为某种程度的透明度调查帮助社区做得更好打击秘密支付编辑。发布和讨论等信息链接到一个编辑的职位，公司简介，或者其他信息连接编辑器来编辑一篇文章主题支付可以是一个有效的方法来识别和阻止秘密支付编辑。这些透明的调查也可能有助于防止滥用和确保人们不会真正连接到编辑支付可以有机会解释自己的情况如果情况下导致错误的发生。同样重要的是要记住，WP:OUTING不能用来避免使用条款的披露要求:如果有人编辑公司未披露，管理员正确发布人的公司，相关调查正在帮助把账户符合这些要求。（We also think that some degree of transparency in investigations helps the communities do a better job combating undisclosed paid editing. Posting and discussing information such as links to an editor’s job posting, company profile, or other information connecting that editor to editing an article subject for pay can be an effective way to identify and stop undisclosed paid editing. These kinds of transparent investigations may also help prevent abuse and ensure that people who aren’t actually connected to editing for pay can have an opportunity to explain their situation if circumstances cause a mistake to happen. It’s also important to remember that WP:OUTING can’t be used as a way to avoid the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use: if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements.）

假如抽象看待规则，有时很难判断此类发布是否恰当，难以划清发布个人信息骚扰别人与公正、透明调查之间的界线。然而我们看到，维基社群曾在艰难的情况下作出所需的判断，解决问题。在我们看来，不断烦扰、发布某人的讯息，绝非恰当。至于无辜者的个人信息，即使仅发布一次，恶意使其受关注，亦不恰当。但是，如上所述，我们认为在善意的调查当中，发布一些先前已公开的个人资料，是适当的做法。我们信任诸位编辑、管理员、敏感权限持有人，在绝大多数情况下，能够区分骚扰与合适地标记已公开个人资料两者的差异，而若出现临界情况，他们可以联络基金会。

下列要素，可能有助于区分诚信调查或是骚扰之间的差异所在：

• 被公开的资讯类型以及此资讯是否超过调查之必要
• 资讯的来源（例如来源是否可靠、是否可公开查阅）
• 此被肉搜的个体或是被公开的资讯，在调查发生之前已经有多高的公共性
• 在wiki上发布此讯息的个人，在哪些地方、使用什么方式、有多频繁的公开此讯息（也就是说，这个公开讯息的个人是否有用垃圾邮件的方式散播个人资讯？）
• 为什么这份资讯会被公开发布

维基媒体基金会法务的角色

WMF法律有很多工具，我们可以用它来帮助解决问题的秘密支付编辑，但他们并不适用于所有情况，他们可以有不同程度的有效性取决于特定情况的细节。（WMF Legal has a number of tools that we can use to help address issues of undisclosed paid editing, but they do not apply to every case and they can have varying levels of effectiveness depending on the details of a particular case.）

首先，我们收集的信息支付编辑每当报告寄给我们或标记。这使我们能够识别重复球员或有问题的趋势。（First, we collect information about paid editing whenever reports are sent to us or flagged to us. This allows us to identify repeat players or problematic trends over time.）

第二，我们执行维基商标。人从事不当支付编辑实践和宣传他们的服务有时使用全球难题或其他维基标记，这是不公平的挪用Wikimedia项目的商誉为自己的利润。在这些情况下标记，我们快速响应他们，因为商标法对大多数网站有相对完善的报告制度。这可能导致恶意网站撤下，个人的帖子被删除，或特定的坏演员被禁止其他网站。（Second, we enforce the Wikimedia trademarks. People who engage in inappropriate paid editing practices and advertise their services sometimes use the puzzle globe or other Wikimedia marks, which is unfairly appropriating the goodwill of the Wikimedia projects for their own profit. When these cases are flagged to us, we respond quickly to them because trademark law has a relatively refined reporting regime on most websites. This can lead to malicious websites being taken down, individual postings being removed, or specific bad actors being banned from other sites. ）

第三，我们可以选择停止发送信件，发现违反使用条款支付相关编辑和阻塞用户还不足以解决这个问题。这是预留给严重的病例，因为我们不想把这种法律打击人的工具，遵守使用条款或只是犯了一个错误。停止突然也留给严重病例，因为如果一个失败，它可能导致诉讼，我们看到作为最后一个选项。（Third, we can choose to send cease and desist letters where violations of the Terms of Use are found related to paid editing and blocking the user hasn’t been enough to solve the problem. This is reserved for severe cases because we do not want to bring this sort of legal tool to bear against someone who is complying with the Terms of Use or has simply made a mistake. Cease and desists are also reserved for severe cases because if one fails, it may lead to a lawsuit, which we see as a final option. ）

一般而言，关于隐私这件事

我们为用户社区为自己设定高标准的隐私超出法律要求。有罕见的例子在Wikimedia项目发布的个人信息被用来骚扰人，我们鼓励用户宁可谨慎，避免他人张贴标识信息如果你不确定是否做正确的事情。（We applaud the user communities for setting high standards of privacy for themselves beyond what the law requires. There have been rare instances where posting of personal information on the Wikimedia projects has been used to harass people, and we encourage users to err on the side of caution and avoid posting identifying information of others if you are uncertain about whether you’re doing the right thing by doing so. ）

如上所示，我们不认为这是一个硬性的规则适用于当它好发布公开个人信息。诚信调查所需的人发布使用条款之类的公司信息的例子发布一些信息是有益的而不是有害的，在我们看来。而且可能有其他情况，如在打击破坏一个透明的调查可以帮助用户确定联系不同的傀儡即使不从事编辑。再次，我们建议考虑因素，如信息的来源以及公众在做出这样的决定。（As indicated above though, we don’t think there’s a single hard and fast rule that applies to when it’s okay to post publicly available personal information. Good faith investigations on people who are required to post things like company information by the Terms of Use are examples where posting some information is helpful rather than harmful, in our opinion. And there may be other situations such as in combating vandalism where a transparent investigation could help users identify links between different sock puppets even when not engaged in paid editing. Again, though, we recommend considering factors such as the source of the information and how public it is in making such determinations.）

参见

• 英文维基百科仲裁委员会对此的不同意见