Policy:Use of Wikimedia sites for advocacy purposes/Frequently asked questions
 | This page lists some frequently asked questions (FAQ) about the Use of Wikimedia sites for advocacy purposes. This FAQ is not part of the Use of Wikimedia sites for advocacy purposes. It is not even a legal document and it is not legal advice. We do hope, however, that you will find it helpful. Please note that in the event of any differences in meaning or interpretation between the original English version of this content and a translation, the original English version takes precedence. |
Does this policy apply to messages that are targeted and only visible to logged-in users?
Yes. The same rules apply to all uses of Wikimedia website assets for the purpose of advocacy about external topics, regardless of the target audience. The target audience is relevant in considering whether viewers may be misled by a message, however—logged-in users can be assumed to understand how the Wikimedia projects and movement are organized better than the average reader without a wiki account.
This policy, and the related policies regarding CentralNotice and logo changes, requires notification of Wikimedia Foundation staff for various actions. What will staff be doing in response to these notifications? Would staff veto an action that has community consensus?
An important function of the staff notifications is awareness. The Wikimedia Foundation, and particularly staff on the Global Advocacy team, benefits from knowing what actions Wikimedia communities are taking to advocate about external topics. The notification provides an opportunity for staff to facilitate or support community advocacy efforts, such as by making connections with other aligned groups or sharing messaging tips. Staff may also be aware of other related advocacy efforts, and bring those to the attention of the communities for potential alignment or coordination.
Staff review can also function as a final check for policy compliance. Project communities are expected to consider relevant policies as part of their deliberations about whether to take an advocacy action. The purpose of staff review is not to second-guess community consensus, particularly on matters that are inherently judgment calls (such as the nature of a particular holiday). If there are relevant sections of policy that do not seem to have been considered in community deliberations, though, staff may raise questions about compliance with those policies. Staff would only “veto” an action that has community consensus in the event of a blatant violation of applicable policy, and staff would not “veto” an action without explaining why they are doing so.
Why are there more restrictions on logo changes than on banners?
Compared to banners (and blackouts), a logo change provides very little context. Banners contain text that explains their purpose and contextualizes any images they contain. A logo change on its own, though, can prompt a wide range of interpretations by different viewers. The same logo may even be interpreted differently at different times, due to shifts in the external societal or political context. A logo that incorporates a country's flag, for example, could be a fairly benign celebration if displayed on a national holiday, but in a different context could signal support for a particular political movement. Because they lack contextual information, logo changes are more likely than banners to give rise to misinterpretation. Therefore, more care needs to be taken with logo changes.