User talk:Smallbones/Deceptive advertising

Currently, the essay is just a user essay on Wikipedia. I'd like to be sure that it has enough support within the community that it can become an essay on its own, under community control. So feel free to edit the essay, or to write comments on it here. I also hope to send the essay to WMF legal in about 10 days, as they have said that they would consider the matter of native advertising on Wikipedia. Once we have their feedback, we might even try to bring this user essay to the status of a guideline, or even of a policy.

Any help appreciated.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that this is a very valuable and important essay. However, what I would suggest is that we narrow the focus somewhat, and deal exclusively with native advertising and why it is wrong for Wikipedia to host it. Otherwise we get too theoretical and also too broad. That would require changing the name of this essay, perhaps to something with "native advertising" in the title. As an essay it should present an opinion concerning the topic I think, in this case that Wikipedians need to be on their guard against native advertising. How this differs from paid editing,. How it can include material that is ostensibly in compliance with our rules but is actually a form of advertising. Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Do articles on the English-language Wikipedia that may have effects in Germany have to comply with the ruling
Project Gutenberg seems to have gone offline in Germany following a court ruling ordering them to take down a couple of books. Like Wikipedia, they cling to the notion that they can operate in Germany while disregarding the German law. Rentier (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I recommend reading the decision: the court seems to have accepted the jurisdiction based on things that would apply equally well to the English Wikipedia. . Rentier (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)