Talk:Terms of use: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:25, 25 April 2012

Latest revision as of 03:31, 14 May 2024

Line 1:

{{MovedToFoundationGovWiki|1=Policy talk:Terms of Use}}

{{Info|'''As we close this comment period, thanks to you for a job well done.'''<br /><br />

Congratulations to you, the community, for participating in the most collaborative drafting of a Terms of Use for any major website! With 4500 lines of text, resolution of more than 120 different issues, and over 120 days of discussion, we are bringing this stage of the collaboration to an end today, December 31, 2011. All comments after this date unfortunately may not be reviewed.

<br /><br />

We will take this near final version of the proposed terms of agreement and review it internally at WMF. We don't anticipate any changes other than small non-substantive edits. If there are any substantive recommendations, we will return to the community and open the discussion for another week on those recommendations. In January 2012 or shortly afterwards, the legal department then expects to recommend the final version to the Board of Wikimedia Foundation for review and approval. We expect the Board will take some time to review before reaching a final decision. <br /><br />

Thank you again for all your ideas, creativity, thoughtfulness, research, and expertise. Collaboration worked, and that's because of you.<br /><br />

You can read more about your efforts [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/31/terms-of-use/ on the Wikimedia blog].}}

{{Archive box non-auto|[[Talk:Terms of use/Archives|Archive index]], [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-10-06|2011-10-06]], [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-10-11|2011-10-11]], [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-11-08|2011-11-08]], [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-06|2011-12-06]], [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-13|2011-12-13]], [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-12-29|2011-12-29]], [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2012-1-03|2012-1-03]], [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2012-1-03 2|2012-1-03 2]], [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2012-1-06|2012-1-06]]}}

== Reasons for the New Terms of Use ==

{{collapse top|A copy of the [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2011-September/000238.html announcement] from the mailing lists by the Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel}}

Hi,

In the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been examining for some time whether, as the 5th largest website in the world, we need a

new terms of use agreement. Given our size and the need to ensure good communication with our users, I think we do, so we’ve put ourselves to drafting a new version with the hopes that we could get your review, comments, and ideas.

* You can find the current version of our terms of use here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use .

* You can view the new draft here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use

As I see it, right now our present terms of use is not much more than a licensing agreement. It does not address a number of other subjects that are normally found in terms of use of other community-driven websites and that are often relevant for both legal and community reasons. See, as examples, the Mozilla Terms of Use (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Terms%20of%20Service) and Creative Commons Terms of Use (https://creativecommons.org/terms) .

What we would like to do is to invite you to read the draft, reflect on it, and leave your comments and feedback on the discussion page. We plan to leave this version up for at least 30 days; indeed, a 30-day comment period for changes is built into the new draft.

Our plan is to review the comments and feedback, make appropriate changes and edits, return with a revised version, and, if appropriate, propose that draft to the Board of Trustees for adoption and translation.

Generally, we sought to craft a document that is more even-handed, shorter, and easier-to-read than most user agreements. Although we encourage you to read the entire draft, here are some key provisions to give you some flavor:

* '''Security''': The proposed agreement prohibits a number of actions - like malware - that could compromise our systems. We thought we should be clear as to what is unacceptable in this area, though most of these restrictions will not be surprising.

*''' Roles and responsibilities''': We feel we need to be honest with the community on a number of issues, including user liability. We have heard a number of community members asking for guidance on this topic. The proposed agreement also seeks to provide guidelines to help users avoid trouble.

* '''Community feedback''': With this version, and with each major revision afterwards, we want the community to be involved … obviously. So the proposed agreement gives users a 30-day comment period before a major revision goes into effect (with Board approval). There is a 3-day exception for urgent legal and administrative changes.

* '''Free Licensing''': We felt our present agreement is somewhat confusing on the free licensing requirements. The proposed agreement attempts to explain more clearly those requirements for editors.

* '''Harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues''': The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. We will share that policy with the community in draft form shortly. Dealing with such matters is a process that we hope volunteers will continue to lead on a day-to-day basis.

* '''Other Legal Provisions''': We do have other legal provisions...we are lawyers after all. Most notably, the proposed agreement incorporates legal sections that are commonly used to help safeguard a site like ours, such as disclaimers and limitations on liability.

Thank you in advance for your review and comments. Your input will be invaluable.

Geoff

{{collapse bottom}}

Some folks have asked me to explain in more detail, beyond my email, why we need a user agreement, which, of course, I’m happy to do. To start, I want to underscore a couple of points. First, a user agreement should serve as a guide to new editors and readers (as well as the rest of the Community). It should help newbies understand the basic rules of the game and their responsibilities. It is only fair notice, and it reflects our commitment to transparency. When people understand the rules, when they understand their responsibilities, the experience is likely to be a better one for the reader and user as well as the Community. To be sure, not everyone reads the user agreement, but many do. And, when there are questions, it is always there as a reference to guide and advise.

Second, a lot of this falls into the category of “an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.” There is a reason that every other website of our size has a (much more extensive and shockingly one-sided) terms of use: a little bit of legal language can go a long way in keeping an organization out of court. Indeed, we see more extensive terms of use than our present one on websites that share values of openness and community. See, as examples, the Mozilla Terms of Use (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Terms%20of%20Service) and Creative Commons Terms of Use (https://creativecommons.org/terms) .

These terms of use are useful in preventing the frivolous lawsuits that could otherwise hit hard an organization’s budget; an issue that is especially relevant for a non-profit. Just because a lawsuit lacks basis doesn’t mean we don’t still have to hire a lawyer to go to court to defend us, and, if there’s one thing lawyers are known for, it’s that their costs add up fast.

Wikipedia and our other sites are really big now. This is something to rejoice and be proud of – you, as well as everyone who has contributed over the years, have done a great job building this amazing site while promoting an incredible mission! But being large means you have to protect yourself, your infrastructure, and your Community.

That said, let me take a stab at explaining some of the more specific reasons for the proposed terms of use:

# A good description of our services (Sec. 1) reinforces to third parties, potential litigants, and courts what is a known and important fact about our operation: Wikimedia is a hosting site, entitled to legal immunity under U.S. and some foreign law. We constantly receive threats of lawsuits, but, after we explain our hosting site immunity, most of those threats go away. If we do go to litigation, and we sometimes do, courts are receptive to our hosting status position. The proposed language in the user agreement is not essential, but it can help persuade a foreign court that we are hosting content where the local law is unclear. In short, it reduces costs: We operate on a small budget, and every time we can persuade a lawyer not to sue us or a court to support us, that means more money to support the Community mission.

# The user agreement helps new users see comprehensively the most important policies governing our site, like the Privacy Policy (Sec. 2), Board resolutions (Sec. 11), and Community policies (Sec. 11). It becomes more difficult for a user to claim ignorance about these essential guidelines when they are referenced in a user agreement.

# A user agreement provides helpful notice to new users on issues that govern their very first edit. For example, a new user should know upfront that he or she is responsible for his or her edits (Sec. 1b). That is only fair. A new user should understand what basic behavior is not acceptable on the site (something that we are working to define right now through this discussion process)(Sec. 4). That helps both the user and the Community.

# The prohibitions also are intended to assist the Community when it enforces its rules against unacceptable conduct (Sec. 4, 10). Indeed, for some of these prohibitions, such as long term abuse, senior members of the Community requested that we address this behavior as aggressively as possible; this user agreement is in partial response to that. Unacceptable conduct that is expressly called out in the user agreement provides backup for all the projects to enforce against violating users. And, if we were challenged in court, clearer rules in the user agreement would render these community actions even easier to defend.

# The user agreement seeks to put in one place the essential parts of other legal or important documents on our site, many of which would be particularly hard to locate for newer or less familiar editors and readers. For example, the user agreement addresses potentially offensive material (Sec. 3a), non-professional advice (Sec. 3b), use of our trademarks (Sec. 6), and third party websites and resources (Sec. 9). See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking ; http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy .

# With respect to technical situations like malware attacks on the site, we need to be ready to litigate if necessary. We facilitate that legal option by underscoring our boundaries in the user agreement for purposes of common law trespass and the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html Computer Fraud and Abuse Act] (Sec. 4). We want to be in the best position to protect our infrastructure and pursue all legal avenues, and the user agreement advances those goals.

# A user agreement should provide helpful information to ensure the experience is a positive one. We do that in the new proposed agreement. See Sec. 5 (telling users to keep their password secure); Sec. 8 (providing advice on how to handle DMCA takedown notices).

# Like the present user agreement, we need to provide clear guidance on the licensing requirements (Sec. 7). With a new reiteration, we hope we employ even easier-to-understand language (though we could probably do better, and as with everything else, welcome your suggestions to improve it).

# A user agreement allows us to gather in one place required legal notices and processes which help limit our legal liability, such as the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html Digital Millennium Copyright Act] (DMCA)(Sec. 8).

# The crown jewels for the Community and the Foundation are the Wikimedia trademarks. We need to be vigilant in this area, and the agreement puts all users on further notice that the trademarks may be used for only limited purposes that advance our mission (Sec. 6). Part of our ongoing legal responsibility as an organization is to safeguard our marks, and it is surprisingly easy for these trademarks to be lost due to obscure legal pitfalls. Our trademarks are there to protect users, the community, and the general populace by providing a clear method of identifying our services and goods so people are not misled by fraudulent impostors. The proposed user agreement furthers that aim.

# There are good reasons to limit WMF liability in other ways (Sec. 13-16). WMF works off a limited budget consisting of valued donor money. $30 million sounds like a lot, but it really isn't for a website our size. As noted above, any wording that can persuade a lawyer not to file a lawsuit, saves donors' money - money that can be reinvested to assist the Community in forwarding the Wikimedia movement. I don't want to waste it on outside lawyers.

The above is only a partial list on the reasons for the proposed terms of use, but I hope you find it useful. As I have said below, in the end, this is intended to be a Community document, reflecting its values while reasonably protecting the Foundation. I encourage your feedback and suggestions and thank everyone who has participated so far.

[[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 01:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

:Preserved from automated archival. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) <span class="autosigned" style="font-size: smaller;">&mdash;Preceding [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 14:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated-->

== The terms of use are now before the WMF Board of Trustees for consideration ==

After an internal review, WMF staff will be proposing no additional changes or amendments to the proposed terms of use. I therefore recommended that the Board replace the present terms of use with the proposed terms of use. That recommendation was forwarded to the Board today for consideration. Many thanks again for everyone's hard work on this project. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 23:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Communication sent to Board}}

<div class="letterhead" style="padding: 3em 2em;background-color: #faf9f2;">

<div style="font-size: 110%; margin: 0 3em;">

&nbsp;<br/>

'''Background'''

For more than 140 days, the Wikimedia community reviewed, drafted, and redrafted the terms of use with more than 200 edits modifying the original proposal. While accumulating 19,000 page views, community members offered comments, edits, and rewrites. Complete or partial translations appeared in 20+ languages. With over 4500 lines of text and as many words as Steinbeck’s classic “The Grapes of Wrath,” discussion helped ensure a thoughtful process.

These [[Terms of use|proposed terms of use]] are intended to replace [[:wmf:Terms of use|our present version]]. It is not commonly known that our present terms are nothing more than a licensing agreement, not traditional terms of use. The new proposed terms of use represent a step forward and a more comprehensive view of the Wikimedia projects. Among other things, they provide for:

*'''Better understanding''': The proposed agreement includes an easy-to-read template summary to help facilitate understanding of the terms.

*'''Stronger security''': The proposed agreement prohibits a number of actions – like installing malware – that could compromise our systems. We thought we should be clear as to what is unacceptable in this area, though most of these restrictions will not be surprising or represent any real change in practice.

*'''Clearer roles''': We have heard a number of community members asking for guidance, so we set out clearly the roles and responsibilities of the community, including editors and contributors. The proposed agreement also seeks to provide guidelines to help users avoid trouble.

*'''More community feedback''': With this version, and with each major revision afterwards, we want the community to be involved. So the proposed agreement gives users at least a 30-day comment period before a major revision goes into effect (with Board approval). There is a 3-day exception for urgent legal and administrative changes.

*'''Clearer free licensing''': We feel our present agreement is somewhat confusing on the free licensing requirements. The proposed agreement attempts to explain more clearly those requirements for editors (without changing existing practices).

*'''More tools against harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues''': The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. While the global ban is authorized by the terms of use, it will be implemented by community policy.

*'''Better legal protection''': The proposed agreement incorporates legal sections that are commonly used to help safeguard a site like ours, such as better explanation of our hosting status as well as disclaimers and limitations on liability for the Foundation.

More detailed reasons why we are proposing updated terms of use are set out [[#Reasons_for_the_New_Terms_of_Use|here]]. Suffice it to say, we are consistent with other like-minded organizations, which have incorporated similar agreements, including [http://www.archive.org/about/terms.php Internet Archives], [https://creativecommons.org/terms Creative Commons], [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal.html Mozilla Firefox], [http://www.opensource.org/ToS Open Source Initiative],[http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:The_Project_Gutenberg_License Project Gutenberg], [https://www.linux.com/terms Linux Foundation], [http://stackexchange.com/legal Stack Exchange], [http://www.wikispaces.com/terms WikiSpaces], and [http://en.wordpress.com/tos/ Word Press.com].

Specifically, in its more than 320 printed pages of discussions, the community raised, discussed, and resolved more than 120 issues. There were many substantive and editorial changes that greatly improved the document. Much language was deleted or tightened at community request. As part of this process, the community addressed a number of interesting topics, such as:

*Whether we should emphasize that the community (not WMF) is primarily responsible for enforcing policy: We agreed to underscore this primary responsibility of the community to avoid any confusion.

*Whether we should include an indemnification clause to the benefit of WMF: We chose to delete it in light of community concerns.

*Whether we should adopt a “human-readable” version to facilitate understanding: We agreed to incorporate such a summary.

*Whether we should expressly prohibit linking to certain sites: We chose not to, deleting earlier language unacceptable to the community.

*Whether we should require civility and politeness: With varying views, we decided to “encourage” it.

*Whether the WMF should provide resources to support forks: We chose not to address this now, though we agreed to highlight the discussion to the Board for its consideration. *Please find the most relevant discussions on forking [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-12-06#Right_to_Fork here] and [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2012-1-03_2#Right_to_fork here].

*Whether we should emphasize the independent roles of chapters: We chose to do so.

*Whether we should increase the liability limitation for WMF from $100 to $1000: We answered affirmatively.

*Whether we should provide for additional comment time after the posting of translations in three key languages: We said “yes” to address international community concerns.

Needless to say, this project would have been impossible without the hard work and expertise of our community. Through their tireless effort, the community mentored important and deep discussions on critical subjects for Wikimedia. The process forced us to think about issues that we had never addressed directly. In short, the value of collaboration quickly became obvious. Its magic created a document many times better than the original.

Many thanks to Philippe, Maggie, Steven, Michelle, Kelly, Matt, and others at WMF for their hard work on this project.

'''Proposed Resolution'''

''As General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation, I hereby propose the following resolution for approval by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation: Resolved, that, upon recommendation of the General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation and upon review and consideration of the extensive community discussions on the subject, the Board of Trustees hereby approves to substitute the current terms of use, which is presently found [[:wmf:Terms of Use|here]], with the proposed terms of use, which is presently found [[Terms of use|here]].''

If the Board would find it useful, I will be happy to discuss the proposed terms of use in detail during its February meetings. I do request approval of the new proposed terms of use at those meetings if the schedule of the Board so allows.

Regards,

Geoff

Geoffrey Brigham <br>

General Counsel<br>

Wikimedia Foundation<br>

</div>

</div>

{{collapse bottom}}

:Preserved from automated archival. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) <span class="autosigned" style="font-size: smaller;">&mdash;Preceding [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 14:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated-->

== May 20, 2012 ==

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NaBUru38&diff=3643997&oldid=1474738

To anyone who still has this page on their watchlists: It appears as if these new terms will come into effect on May 20, 2012. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 16:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

:We've got more announcements on that shortly. :) [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|talk]]) 16:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/New_Terms_of_use &ndash; Will the new Terms of use become effective in April or May? --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 11:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

:May. Thanks, Michael. :) --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 16:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

::You're welcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 17:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

== self-referential nutshell ==

The "human-readable summary of the Terms of Use" says "[the user must] adhere to the below Terms of Use..."

This defeats the purpose of a human-readable summary. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 00:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

:Hi, John. The human-readable summary can't replace the full text of the agreement. It was inspired by the Creative Common version of the same; their disclaimer describes that as "the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath", but they note that "This Deed itself has no legal value".

:That said, it does kind of make it less useful as a summary if they then have to read the full TOU anyway. :) But the summary is much lower-weight than the TOU itself, and it should be easier to make any necessary changes.

:Geoff, what do you think? --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 11:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

::As usual, John makes an interesting point. The language at issue is: "You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities." The purpose of the language is to make clear that there are rules of the game that users must follow, including the TOU and other community policies and that they apply not only when you visit but also when you participate. Put another way, the objective is to convey that the TOU is not the exclusive policy that needs to be followed: You need to follow other applicable community policies as well. And the TOU and other policies apply not only when you participate but also when you visit.

::I can see an argument that there are better ways to phrase it (though I'm personally fine with the present construction). However, this summary was the subject of much discussion with the community and finalized after obtaining a consensus. The Board has also approved it. If there is a need to change, I suggest we take it up during the next update (probably in a couple of years).

::Thanks as always for your thoughtfulness, John.

[[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 12:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

== 4. Refraining from Certain Activities ==

That section seems overly harsh. While I certainly agree with the principal idea behind it I would have appreciated if some of it had been toned down a bit, particularly concerning bullet points such as "Harassing and Abusing Others", which may be a bit hard to assess objectively. Maybe it would have helped to rephrase the last sentence as "We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion in the case of severe or repeated violations with respect to the above terms." [[User:Nageh|Nageh]] ([[User talk:Nageh|talk]]) 12:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:Others are expressing concerns with the "Harassing and Abusing Others" as well:

:*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-04-16/News_and_notes&diff=487775997&oldid=487766000

:*http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3188#p3188

:I also share the concerns that Thekohser brought up. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 13:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

::Nageh, you've got it exactly backwards. "We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion in the case of severe or repeated violations" means "We will mindlessly enforce these points in all minor, moderate, and one-time incidents." The whole point of the existing sentence is to indicate that they will use discretion, i.e., frequently overlook, minor incidents. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:::But ... how will you determine what your "enforcement discretion" will entail without getting involved in content? Are you just going to do a "bad word" filter type thing? Or are you going to be more investigative? Addressing stalking, incivility, disruptive editing (whatever that is), copyvio/plagiarism, endlessly discussing other editors on talk pages, or what? How far does this go? Pornography and sexist comments on talk pages? [[User:MathewTownsend|MathewTownsend]] ([[User talk:MathewTownsend|talk]]) 01:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

::::Office actions are occasioned by an official, formal complaints made off-wiki (e.g. mail, email, telephone calls or personal meetings). Most of the time, these do not concern user behavior, but rather are about the content of an encyclopedia article. The complaint must be legitimate, not a demand for preferment or attempt at intimidation. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 15:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

== Update on schedule ==

We'll be launching banners on April 25 announcing the new TOU, to be effective on May 25. We delayed the launch in order to improve translation quality for supporting materials.

Notification will be prominent: via the Centralnotice system, putting a (reasonably sized) banner at the top of the page. No logo, text only. It will run for 30 days to give notice of the change. Then, on May 25 we migrate the new TOU to replace the old TOU, and we're up and live.

As always, happy to take questions. :) [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|talk]]) 08:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

:Hi Philippe,

:Thanks for the update! Is this notice only available to logged in users or all? (I assume the latter) And I also assume it will be removable (both logged in and logged out - if they have clicked it away, they can be considered to have read?) [[User:Effeietsanders|Effeietsanders]] ([[User talk:Effeietsanders|talk]]) 12:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::It will be to all users, and removable, correct. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|talk]]) 22:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

==[[Terms of use|meta:Terms of use]] and [[wmf:Terms of use]]==

What's the difference between [[Terms of use|meta:Terms of use]] and [[wmf:Terms of use]]? -- [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] - <small>[[User talk:Jtneill|Talk]]</small> 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

:[[wmf:Terms of use]] are still officially in force until the final role out of [[Terms of use|meta:Terms of use]]. At that point, we're expecting that these will replace those. :) --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 00:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

== Banner message problem ==

The banner message doesn't direct users to a central area for discussion and questions. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 18:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

:The talk page of the landing page is already being used for that. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven (WMF)|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</font> 18:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::You'll find that the majority of Wikimedia users don't have wikimediafoundation.org accounts. I can't participate in the discussions there. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 19:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)