On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Tisza Gergő<gti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tisza Gergő <gti...@...> writes: >> I do argue that it is not in violation of the privacy policy (whether >> the people here find it acceptable is another question). > > Just to make it clear, I don't think accordance with the privacy policy > automatically entitles one to do something. The PP is a minimum set of > requirements strong enough to assure users and weak enough to not hinder > ourselves (as it is difficult to change it); if something is permitted by the > policy, but the WMF or the developers or the relevant community is against it, > then it will not be done.
That's a reasonable view. > So instead of talking about the privacy policy (which > would be routinely violated if spread of IP data to non-WMF-owned servers > would > indeed be a violation - consider WikiMiniAtlas, for example) it would be more > productive to talk about whether such a use is acceptable, and if not, what > can > be done to make it so. Agreed. This is a matter of a local project wanting to maintain a long-standing feature or service without adverseley affecting anyone, violating shared meta-community norms, or having to wait for bottlenecks in centralized implementation. It is very wiki to want to find ways to fix things yourself. > (For example, would it help if WM-HU took ownership? We > could also write a complementary privacy policy for it, stating that it will > never be used for any other reason than statistics, who has access, how long > the > raw logs are kept etc.) Perhaps other messages in this thread will shed light here... I hear people outside of hu:wp expressing a desire to centralize and maintain a bottleneck for the simple reason that a bottleneck is easier to police. SJ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
