The subject of “unofficial” wikis came up obliquely in comments by the Society President at the October 2024 quarterly Board meeting, as well as in subsequent discussion online, and I thought it might be useful to review some of the existing policies that were applicable and write out my recommendations for future policy-making in this area.
See also: Recommended Policy Approaches for Society-Run Wikis.
Note that, as with all of the material on this site, none of the below is an authoritative statement of policy — these are just my initial personal thoughts, written out in hopes that they might help those officers who are ultimately responsible for authoring policy in the future.
Context
- Problems can emerge when online resources are labeled as “unofficial” but are SCA-centric and/or de-facto treated as an SCA resource, because the populace and the public at large may be unclear on whether material published there is reliable, or is published with the approval of the Society, or whether problematic behavior is subject to Society sanctions — and due to this ambiguity, content and behavior on those sites can harm our community, damage the Society’s public reputation, or create legal liability for the organization.
- Because there was a widespread practice in previous decades of branches and officers running online resources but labeling them “unofficial” with a nod and a wink in an effort to order to dodge restrictive or unclear rules, that particular term has lost a lot of its power.
- For example, a website named “Unofficial Records of the SCA College of Arms” might run a significant risk of seeming like a de-facto SCA-approved resource even though it was labeled “unofficial” — and that uncertainty would be greatly increased if there were crossed gold trumpets on every page, and numerous pages on the official College of Arms website linked to the “unofficial” site, and senior heralds kept telling people to check the “unofficial” site for important information.
- While it does take time and energy to to properly run online resources such as a Facebook group or a wiki under the auspices of the Society, and they can sometimes create problems, these resources have a lot of value to the populace — and if the Society refuses to allow Society-run versions, “unofficial” ones will pop up to fill the gap, which can make the problems worse because the Society loses control over them (and may generate animosity along the way).
Recommended Policy
- Officers should avoid furthering any ambiguity over “unofficial” online resources by refusing to host them on SCA servers or with SCA-owned domain names, avoiding linking to them from Society publications such as websites and officer announcements (except for perhaps a very rare mention accompanied by a disclaimer), and not administering or publishing anything to them when acting in their capacity as officers.
- The above does not mean that Society websites can not link to third-party sites like Wikipedia — this restriction is specifically for “unofficial” sites where there is potential for confusion.
- This also does not mean that officers can not have their own personal websites, as long as there is little chance of confusion over their status.
- Cases of serious malfeasance on “unofficial” sites, either by the site’s administrators or by members of the populace, should be referred to the seneschalate or the Corporate office to allow them to determine if sanctions or legal action are required, just as would be done with “unofficial” social media.
- Members of the populace who run “unofficial” online resources should be encouraged to take steps to reduce any ambiguity about their status, with an understanding that failure to clearly indicate their independent nature, or the widespread use of Society trademarks (such as kingdom names and arms), could significantly increase the chances of possible future conflict with the Corporate office.
- The SCA’s leadership already has its hands full with other priorities, and in practice it is not going to pick needless fights with “unofficial” sites, or hunt down every site that displays Society armory and sue them for trademark infringement, but reserves the right (and has a duty) to take steps in cases where such sites are harming the Society or run a significant risk of doing so.
- Policies which lead volunteers to feel like the online resources they are building need to run as “unofficial” sites should be reviewed to see whether clearer communication or a slightly-revised policy interpretation could finesse the issues that lead to these being established outside the Society.
- As a means of regularizing the status quo, administrators of “unofficial” online resources established under earlier policy regimes may consider offering to transfer ownership of their site to the SCA so that it can become a Society-run resource. Officers should very carefully consider the content, community, copyright/license terms, and ongoing maintenance and moderation requirements of a site before accepting such an offer.
Relevant Existing Policies
About “Unofficial” Resources
- Officers should avoid issues with “unofficial SCA” websites which either are de-facto SCA-administered publications just skirting the rules, or are ambiguously “SCA adjacent” and risk giving members of the public the impression that they are run by the SCA. (Webministers Handbook page 14.)
About Trademarks
- Corpora states that SCA trademarks (including the names and armory of branches, awards, and guilds “may be used or reproduced only upon permission of the Society President or authorized delegate.” (Corpora XII.) Notably, this is a much more restrictive claim than trademark law provides, which only protects these marks against infringement and dilution, while allowing “fair use.” In practice, thousands of people have used Society marks in material they’ve published, and the SCA has not pursued litigation against them. As far as I know, most of the times that trademark infringement issues have been raised has been in regards to “unofficial” websites.
- When the subject came up in the October 2024 quarterly board meeting, the Communications Officer and Board President both stated that the problem stemmed from cases where there was ambiguity as to whether third-party websites might be seen as representing the SCA. Adding a “this is not an SCA publication” disclaimer helps to address this concern, but it’s not clear whether it completely eliminates it. (SCA President in correspondence: “Unofficial sites need a disclaimer stating that they are unofficial. Ultimately the SCA reserves the right to protect its IP when necessary.” SCA Communications in Zoom chat: “You can definitely talk about our club in blogs and web based articles. What everyone need to do is be very clear whether or not you are representing the SCA in an official capacity. This is doubly important for anyone who might hold an office or a rank in the Society that could be confusing. Communications recommends the use of a disclaimer to clarify this for your readers if in any doubt…”)