Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing new "Signpost" issues on this list

[Mariano Cecowski]

A RSS/Atom feed would be great.

Thanks,
MarianoC.-


PS: I know, the page's history's RSS would do, but you'd get every single 
change to the page instead of the weekly update.


--- El mar 3-ago-10, Wikipedia Signpost  escribió:

> De: Wikipedia Signpost 
> Asunto: [Foundation-l] Announcing new "Signpost" issues on this list
> Para: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Fecha: martes, 3 de agosto de 2010, 20:56
> Hi all,
> 
> some of you might know the "Signpost", a community-written
> and
> community-edited newspaper, based on the English Wikipedia
> and
> covering stories, events and reports related to Wikipedia,
> its sister
> projects and the Wikimedia Foundation:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/About
> 
> The first issue came out on January 10, 2005 and it has
> been appearing
> (more or less) weekly ever since then, with a new issue due
> every
> Monday.
> 
> While coverage of events on the English Wikipedia forms an
> important
> part of the "Signpost", our "News and notes", "In the news"
> and
> "Technology Report" sections regularly contain many news
> items that
> are relevant for other Wikipedias, or all Foundation
> projects. In June
> (around the time when Sage Ross left as editor-in-chief to
> take up his
> current job at the WMF, and I stepped into the breach), we
> had a lot
> of discussions about new ideas for the Signpost, including
> proposals
> to provide translations of our Foundation-wide coverage, or
> even
> moving it to Meta. While this still seemed a bit ambitious,
> there was
> consensus to emphasize our interwiki coverage more, and it
> was
> subsequently renamed from "Wikipedia Signpost" to
> "Signpost".
> [Commercial break: If you are an experienced member of a
> WMF
> project/community and would like to contribute to one of
> our "Sister
> project" stories, covering its history, characteristics and
> recent
> major events, contact us at this email address or at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POST/TIPS
> .] And at Wikimania last
> month, I talked to a lot of Wikimedians who are not
> primarily active
> on the English Wikipedia, but nevertheless know, read and
> appreciate
> the Signpost.
> 
> On the other hand, there is currently no other independent
> publication
> (at least not in English) which regularly covers or
> summarizes
> WMF-related news. Wikizine was very informative and even
> had several
> translated editions, but has been inactive since the
> beginning of this
> year. Wikipedia Weekly was a well-informed podcast
> disussing much
> Foundation news, but there hasn't been a new episode since
> October
> 2009. Veterans might recall the Wikimedia Quarto, which had
> some
> excellent content and was widely translated, but stopped
> after three
> issues in 2004/2005. Of course there are other things which
> are useful
> for staying up to date, like the blog planets or Phoebe's
> earlier list
> summaries for this list, but they don't replace
> journalism-style news
> reporting.
> 
> Following a suggestion by Phoebe, I am going to try out
> sending
> announcements of new Signpost issues to this list,
> containing brief
> headline summaries and links (see accompanying posting for
> the current
> issue). We hope that this will provide valuable and
> on-topic
> information for people interested in the kind of topics
> that are being
> discussed here, and perhaps it could also help to get more
> people
> involved in providing reader-oriented coverage of news from
> WMF
> projects to the whole Wikimedia community.
> 
> Regards, HaeB
> 
> -- 
> Wikipedia Signpost Staff
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 


  

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for Volunteers: Wikimedia Research Committee

[Gregory Kohs]

Erik,

Will critics of less-than-best-practices within the Wikimedia Foundation be
considered for invitation to the Wikimedia Research Committee, or is there
some sort of loyalty "litmus test" going to be applied?

I've sent my self-nomination by private e-mail anyway, but I thought a
public clarification of this question would be a helpful learning.

Thanks,

Greg

-- 
Gregory Kohs
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Why should Wikimedians meet?

[Oliver Keyes]

OMG I MET ROBERT I LUV HIM SO is disruptive. "Does anyone know where he was
educated? It isn't listed" is potentially helpful. And so on.

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> Oliver Keyes wrote:
> > Agreed. A good example; on the English Wikipedia, I'm a massive law nerd
> > with 40-something legal GAs and FAs to my name. I'd never even have
> studied
> > the subject if it wasn't for a group of Wikipedians, some of whom have
> later
> > helped me with or collaborated on articles. The importance of social
> > interaction cannot be understated, and it's why I have no truck with some
> of
> > the more severe "OMG WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MYSPACE" people. People come here
> to
> > build a collaborative encyclopaedia, yes, not to socially interact - but
> the
> > key word there is "collaborative". Social contact is inevitable and
> > incredibly helpful to us as a community; hells, it's what *makes us* a
> > community and not just a hundred thousand people who independently agree
> > that Wikipedia is nifty.
> One of the more annoying of the anti-social species is the kind that
> becomes annoyed when talk page comments wander a little off topic, and
> claim that this is contrary to the talk page's single purpose of
> improving what's in article space.  The improvement to the article from
> these off topic comments may be somewhat oblique, but it can improve
> one's understanding of the topic and of the person commenting.
>
> Ray
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

[Ray Saintonge]

Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on the 
> FBI.
>
> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investigation
>
> You can see the edit in the "Article History". However, at the time of 
> writing, the seal is still included in the "Media" section of the article (in 
> the panel on the left), where it is zoomable to Full Size and also has a 
> "Save to My Workspace" option.

Could this action by EB be an example of collateral paranoia?

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Why should Wikimedians meet?

[Ray Saintonge]

Oliver Keyes wrote:
> Agreed. A good example; on the English Wikipedia, I'm a massive law nerd
> with 40-something legal GAs and FAs to my name. I'd never even have studied
> the subject if it wasn't for a group of Wikipedians, some of whom have later
> helped me with or collaborated on articles. The importance of social
> interaction cannot be understated, and it's why I have no truck with some of
> the more severe "OMG WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MYSPACE" people. People come here to
> build a collaborative encyclopaedia, yes, not to socially interact - but the
> key word there is "collaborative". Social contact is inevitable and
> incredibly helpful to us as a community; hells, it's what *makes us* a
> community and not just a hundred thousand people who independently agree
> that Wikipedia is nifty.
One of the more annoying of the anti-social species is the kind that 
becomes annoyed when talk page comments wander a little off topic, and 
claim that this is contrary to the talk page's single purpose of 
improving what's in article space.  The improvement to the article from 
these off topic comments may be somewhat oblique, but it can improve 
one's understanding of the topic and of the person commenting.

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation

[AGK]

On 2 August 2010 23:01, Cary Bass  wrote:
> I enjoy working with each and every one of you.

Likewise. Thanks for everything you've done for us, Cary, and good
luck with your studies.

AGK

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Shane Simmons]

>The issue is the aggregation and collation of the data and making it
>available to others. Why would you consider that some one's edit history
>is any less personal than what they borrow from the library?

...

>Why so? Editing history reveals your interests, maybe your politics,
>perhaps your religious affiliations, your ethnicity. A whole range of
>personal data can be mined from 1000s of edits. It may reveal
>associations with other users, and networks of users. Those groupings
>may then be traced into social networks like facebook, or linkin.

If you borrowed books from a library with the reasonable expectation of
privacy, and such data was made public, I can see the issue.
However, if you borrowed books from an open and public source, (
bookcrossing.com comes to mind) which shows you, and everyone else, every
book you've logged into the site, you really can't reasonably expect
privacy.

Rule in thumb: If you can see it about another user, they can see it about
you. On all WMF wikis, even without signing in, you could manually compile a
list of all pages edited by a certain user, at what date and time, and what
words were added to the articles, so on and so forth. If you don't want
people to see this information about you... Don't edit. Plain and simply,
really. By creating an account and continuing to edit, you forgo any
expectation of privacy with the same data. Just my two cents. :)

-User:Avicennasis
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[wiki-list]

masti wrote:
> On 08/03/2010 10:38 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Risker wrote:
>>> On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas  wrote:
> 
>> People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well
>> have a static IP address. Besides simply writing down that data is
>> aggregated does not make it right. If its violation of personal data
>> right for Germans why should it be any less of a violation for
>> Spaniards, French, Americans, British, or the Chinese? Don't the German
>> pages also have links to privacy statements?
> 
> 
> because other countries laws do not mark IP as personal data? Same as 
> cars licence plates. Some people drive car with same licence plates for 
> years. And so what?
> 


For anyone interested this is the 2009 adopted report on privacy of user 
data on social network sites which would cover wikis Note section 2 for 
definition:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp163_en.pdf

See section 3.1.1 for circumstances where users assume the full 
responsibility of Data Controllers under the EU Data Protection 
Directive. Section 3.2 deals with default settings. Section 3.4 
sensitive data. Processing data 3.5 and much of teh rest of section 3. 
Section 4 deals with responsibility WRT minors.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] The Signpost – Volume 6 Issue 3 1 – 2 August 2010

[Wikipedia Signpost]

News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding,
Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-02/News_and_notes

In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy
and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-02/In_the_news

WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-02/WikiProject_report

Features and admins: The best of the week
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-02/Features_and_admins

Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-02/Arbitration_report

Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security,
vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-02/Technology_report

Single page view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single

PDF version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-02


http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

-- 
Wikipedia Signpost Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Announcing new "Signpost" issues on this list

[Wikipedia Signpost]

Hi all,

some of you might know the "Signpost", a community-written and
community-edited newspaper, based on the English Wikipedia and
covering stories, events and reports related to Wikipedia, its sister
projects and the Wikimedia Foundation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/About

The first issue came out on January 10, 2005 and it has been appearing
(more or less) weekly ever since then, with a new issue due every
Monday.

While coverage of events on the English Wikipedia forms an important
part of the "Signpost", our "News and notes", "In the news" and
"Technology Report" sections regularly contain many news items that
are relevant for other Wikipedias, or all Foundation projects. In June
(around the time when Sage Ross left as editor-in-chief to take up his
current job at the WMF, and I stepped into the breach), we had a lot
of discussions about new ideas for the Signpost, including proposals
to provide translations of our Foundation-wide coverage, or even
moving it to Meta. While this still seemed a bit ambitious, there was
consensus to emphasize our interwiki coverage more, and it was
subsequently renamed from "Wikipedia Signpost" to "Signpost".
[Commercial break: If you are an experienced member of a WMF
project/community and would like to contribute to one of our "Sister
project" stories, covering its history, characteristics and recent
major events, contact us at this email address or at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POST/TIPS .] And at Wikimania last
month, I talked to a lot of Wikimedians who are not primarily active
on the English Wikipedia, but nevertheless know, read and appreciate
the Signpost.

On the other hand, there is currently no other independent publication
(at least not in English) which regularly covers or summarizes
WMF-related news. Wikizine was very informative and even had several
translated editions, but has been inactive since the beginning of this
year. Wikipedia Weekly was a well-informed podcast disussing much
Foundation news, but there hasn't been a new episode since October
2009. Veterans might recall the Wikimedia Quarto, which had some
excellent content and was widely translated, but stopped after three
issues in 2004/2005. Of course there are other things which are useful
for staying up to date, like the blog planets or Phoebe's earlier list
summaries for this list, but they don't replace journalism-style news
reporting.

Following a suggestion by Phoebe, I am going to try out sending
announcements of new Signpost issues to this list, containing brief
headline summaries and links (see accompanying posting for the current
issue). We hope that this will provide valuable and on-topic
information for people interested in the kind of topics that are being
discussed here, and perhaps it could also help to get more people
involved in providing reader-oriented coverage of news from WMF
projects to the whole Wikimedia community.

Regards, HaeB

-- 
Wikipedia Signpost Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Prodego]

My opinion -

Once the information is published (by the WMF) you can do anything you want
with it, within the scope of what is legal. dewiki's privacy policy
isn't endorsed by the WMF, who run the site, and so I wouldn't consider it
binding in any way. They may choose to delete things that violate a
particular policy if you post it on dewiki, but that is true of many
policies. What matters is that the toolserver has an absolutely ridiculous
rule requiring that generating statistics about publicly available
information be opt in. I can't see how neglecting to do this could possibly
violate any laws, as some claim it would - but IANAL. However Wikimedia
Deutschland (wikimedia de, not dewiki) owns the toolserver, and they can
have whatever silly rules they want. The only issue is the replicated
database is accessible only from the toolserver. So there are two options -
1) donate a comparable server to the WMF and create another toolserver where
you control the rules or 2) complain to Wikimedia Deutschland, who run the
toolserver. Pavel Richter is the "managing director" of Wikimedia
Deutschland (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland#Mitarbeiter) - perhaps
contact him.

Prodego


On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Przykuta  wrote:

> > >>> No ethics here then.
> >
> > >> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
> > >> Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
> >
> > > How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer
> > > your question yes.
> >
> >
> > [citation needed]
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> please :)
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

[Andreas Kolbe]

Indeed. I should have written "The Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence", because that's who www.dni.gov belongs to, according to its 
banner.

A.

--- On Wed, 4/8/10, Dan Rosenthal  wrote:
> To be fair, the DNI is a relative a
> friend of mine and I am pretty sure he
> does not personally publish much of anything on the
> website. But the point
> is probably well taken.



  

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

[Oliver Keyes]

Another cease-and-desist, perchance? Hopefully the Streisand Effect will
take hold and every news organisation reporting this will reproduce the seal
in loving, high-definition detail.

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on
> the FBI.
>
>
> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investigation
>
> You can see the edit in the "Article History". However, at the time of
> writing, the seal is still included in the "Media" section of the article
> (in the panel on the left), where it is zoomable to Full Size and also has a
> "Save to My Workspace" option.
>
> A.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Przykuta]

> >>> No ethics here then.
> 
> >> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
> >> Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
> 
> > How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer
> > your question yes.
> 
> 
> [citation needed]
> 
> 
> - d.

please :) 

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[David Gerard]

On 3 August 2010 23:23,   wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> On 3 August 2010 22:05,   wrote:

>>> No ethics here then.

>> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
>> Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?

> How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer
> your question yes.


[citation needed]


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

[Andreas Kolbe]

Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on the 
FBI.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investigation

You can see the edit in the "Article History". However, at the time of writing, 
the seal is still included in the "Media" section of the article (in the panel 
on the left), where it is zoomable to Full Size and also has a "Save to My 
Workspace" option.

A.


  

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

[Dan Rosenthal]

To be fair, the DNI is a relative a friend of mine and I am pretty sure he
does not personally publish much of anything on the website. But the point
is probably well taken.

-Dan

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> It's a bit of a Keystone Kops joke for the FBI to complain about Wikipedia
> being irresponsible here, when the Director of National Intelligence himself
> publishes the seal on his website, in almost infinitely scalable detail:
>
> http://www.dni.gov/100-day-plan/100_FOLLOW_UP_REPORT.pdf
>
> A.
>
> --- On Tue, 3/8/10, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > From: Nathan 
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Tuesday, 3 August, 2010, 23:45
> > >
> > > The story has now been picked up by other news
> > agencies from the geeky
> > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml
> > to the
> > > mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of
> > which
> > > pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for
> > one discovered this
> > > story not online but in reading the Sydney Morning
> > Herald today which calls
> > > it a "politely feisty response".
> > >
> > > -Liam
> >
> >
> > Interesting - the NY Times used the same language. Someone
> > got it from
> > someone, wonder which article came first (or if there was a
> > 3rd in the
> > mix).
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

[Andreas Kolbe]

It's a bit of a Keystone Kops joke for the FBI to complain about Wikipedia 
being irresponsible here, when the Director of National Intelligence himself 
publishes the seal on his website, in almost infinitely scalable detail:

http://www.dni.gov/100-day-plan/100_FOLLOW_UP_REPORT.pdf

A.

--- On Tue, 3/8/10, Nathan  wrote:

> From: Nathan 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> Date: Tuesday, 3 August, 2010, 23:45
> >
> > The story has now been picked up by other news
> agencies from the geeky
> > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml
> to the
> > mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of
> which
> > pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for
> one discovered this
> > story not online but in reading the Sydney Morning
> Herald today which calls
> > it a "politely feisty response".
> >
> > -Liam
> 
> 
> Interesting - the NY Times used the same language. Someone
> got it from
> someone, wonder which article came first (or if there was a
> 3rd in the
> mix).
> 
> Nathan
> 
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 


  

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[wiki-list]

John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:51 AM,   wrote:
>> Domas Mituzas wrote:
>>> Hi, wiki-list!
>>>
 No ethics here then.
>>> Excuse me, what is your complaint?
>>>
>>> I don't really get the point you are trying to make.
>>>
>>> There are few simple things, but apparently you have problems to
>>> grasp them :)
>>>
>>> 1. Your readership data is not revealed to third parties. Your point
>>> "if a UK ISP published a list of all its users site visits." is
>>> complete bullshit and does not apply at all in this discussion.
>> Your editing history reveals a lot about you.
> 
> Have some respect please.
> 

Why so? Editing history reveals your interests, maybe your politics,
perhaps your religious affiliations, your ethnicity. A whole range of
personal data can be mined from 1000s of edits. It may reveal
associations with other users, and networks of users. Those groupings
may then be traced into social networks like facebook, or linkin.


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Przykuta]

> >> No ethics here then.
> > 
> > 
> > Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
> > Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
> > 
> 
> How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer 
> your question yes.
> 

Pls, stop. It is no problem (but probably hard work) to create such lists as 
made by emijrp. If any xx wiki don't want it, we - (emijrp and me) are able to 
start private wiki for us with this public data. We will make poupée vaudou for 
cabal rituals ;p

We have "editcount rankings" for years

here

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#wikipedians

and here

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaNL.htm#wikipedians

and here

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm#wikipedians

etc.

Goodnight

przykuta

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

[Nathan]

>
> The story has now been picked up by other news agencies from the geeky
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml to the
> mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of which
> pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for one discovered this
> story not online but in reading the Sydney Morning Herald today which calls
> it a "politely feisty response".
>
> -Liam


Interesting - the NY Times used the same language. Someone got it from
someone, wonder which article came first (or if there was a 3rd in the
mix).

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

[Liam Wyatt]

On 3 August 2010 13:54, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 3 August 2010 14:33, David Gerard  wrote:
> > On 3 August 2010 14:31, Nathan  wrote:
>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw
> >> The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal
> >> of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the
> >> words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well done, Mike.
>
> > At least he didn't actually reference "Arkell v. Pressdram".
>
>
> He comes close, though. Do be sure to read the letter:
>
>
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pdf
>
>
> - d.
>
> I can second that - that letter (in the above PDF link) is amusing as it is
well argued - A must read. Bravo Mike :-)

The story has now been picked up by other news agencies from the geeky
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml to the
mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of which
pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for one discovered this
story not online but in reading the Sydney Morning Herald today which calls
it a "politely feisty response".

-Liam
Peace, Love and Metadata
wittylama.com/blog
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[John Vandenberg]

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:51 AM,   wrote:
> Domas Mituzas wrote:
>> Hi, wiki-list!
>>
>>> No ethics here then.
>>
>> Excuse me, what is your complaint?
>>
>> I don't really get the point you are trying to make.
>>
>> There are few simple things, but apparently you have problems to
>> grasp them :)
>>
>> 1. Your readership data is not revealed to third parties. Your point
>> "if a UK ISP published a list of all its users site visits." is
>> complete bullshit and does not apply at all in this discussion.
>
> Your editing history reveals a lot about you.

Have some respect please.

--
John

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Michael Snow]

wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> 2. As an editor, you are participating in a collaborative process,
>> which has quite a lot of meritocracy, so your contribution to the
>> project matters. 
>> 
> Either an action/edit is good or it is not. Why would previous editing 
> history make any difference to the objective facts of the edits? Does 
> the input from someone new have less merit then someone with 'history'? 
> Because that isn't an example of a meritocracy its a clique.
>   
This argument is simplistic and seductive, but mistaken on many levels. 
It assumes that every last unit that matters can be isolated, and 
evaluated purely in that isolation. We learn otherwise from examples 
like the scientific understanding of actual matter, which shows the 
limits of such reductionist thinking.

An edit is an event or a change in state (maybe a physicist might like 
to call it a "phase"), but it is not an "objective fact" in the sense 
you are arguing, even if it hopefully deals in objective facts. We refer 
to "editorial judgment" in what we do because there are definite 
judgments involved, which can certainly be evaluated but cannot be 
reduced to purely mechanical independent processes. Otherwise, we would 
simply design a program to make all of the changes automatically for us. 
Instead, things must be evaluated in context, and quite often the 
context is much more enlightening to the evaluation than the thing in 
isolation. Imagine trying to deal with vandalism on a wiki with no means 
of connecting one inappropriate edit with another.

Human knowledge does not progress in this fashion; it does not begin at 
the subatomic level and move outward. Although this has been the cause 
of many fits and starts in its overall development, it is for very good 
reason that knowledge works from a rather larger picture.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[wiki-list]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 22:05,   wrote:
> 
>> No ethics here then.
> 
> 
> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
> Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
> 

How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer 
your question yes.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[David Gerard]

On 3 August 2010 22:05,   wrote:

> No ethics here then.


Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[wiki-list]

Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hi, wiki-list!
> 
>> No ethics here then.
> 
> Excuse me, what is your complaint?
> 
> I don't really get the point you are trying to make.
> 
> There are few simple things, but apparently you have problems to
> grasp them :)
> 
> 1. Your readership data is not revealed to third parties. Your point
> "if a UK ISP published a list of all its users site visits." is
> complete bullshit and does not apply at all in this discussion.

Your editing history reveals a lot about you.


> 2. As an editor, you are participating in a collaborative process,
> which has quite a lot of meritocracy, so your contribution to the
> project matters. 


Either an action/edit is good or it is not. Why would previous editing 
history make any difference to the objective facts of the edits? Does 
the input from someone new have less merit then someone with 'history'? 
Because that isn't an example of a meritocracy its a clique.

> 
> 5. Germans are more sensitive to privacy issues, and they have
> probably strictest privacy laws in the world. OTOH, look at (2).


France isn't far off. Other nations are also becoming concerned about 
the uses online data is put to.


> 6. You seem to demand banning underage editing, which is quite
> important Wikipedian demographic :)

No one said ban them. That is some hyperbole you've invented.

> 7. We have ethics of open collaborative project that is providing
> knowledge to the world. This is not tinfoil hat association. GTFO, if
> you want to imply that we don't have ethics here, just because it
> doesn't fit your paranoid POV.
> 

What has any of that got to do with collecting data about editors?


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Reminder: RCC Canberra: August 11, 2010

[Laura Hale]

This is just a reminder. :)  We'd love to see more people attend.

*RecentChangesCamp* is an
open
conference  on online
collaborative practices centered around
wikis.
RCC follows an open space
unconference  model. The main
characteristics are that it is free to attend and self-organized by having a
program determined on the day by attendees, with the aid of a facilitator.
The aim of this event is to draw together interested people regardless of
level of use of wiki and online collaborative spaces, to discuss, question
and share knowledge in a friendly face to face setting.

For catering and information purposes, please
registeryour
interest in this event.

   - Recent Changes Camp
Canberra
   - 10am - 5pm, Wednesday 11 August. 2010
   - University of Canberra, Building 7, Level C, Room 7XC37
   - Contact 
Leighblackall0404561009
   - Tags: #RCC and #UCRCC

 Transportation
[edit
]
 
 
click to enlarge
 To the University of Canberra

The University of Canberra is located in Bruce, ACT. To get there via bus,
you get off at the University of Canberra (College Street) stop. The
following weekday routes serve the University of Canberra: 3, 7, 30, 31, 56,
58, 59, 73, 74, Intertown, 300, 312, 313, 314, 315, 318, 319.
[1]

The University of Canberra is easily accessible by bicycle. Bicycle paths
can be found here . The easiest way
is to look for signs to Belconnen Town Centre. Cross the little wooden
bridge going away from the mall, continue straight past the aquatic center
and college, continue under the underpass, past the student housing and you
will arrive in the centre of campus. There are a number of bike racks
available.
To Canberra

CountryLink (train) , Murray's Coaches
(bus) , and Greyhound
Australia(bus)all serve Canberra. You
can also fly into Canberra. From the airport, there
is coach service into the city centre.


Sincerely,
Laura Hale
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[wiki-list]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Domas Mituzas wrote:
>>   
 The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
 an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
 make public statements about a user.
   
>>> we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with
>>> pseudonym.
>>> 
>> And? People use the same pseudonym on more than one site just as they 
>> use the same password on more than one site. Besides some people even 
>> enter their real name.
>>   
> 
> Using a pseudonym or a real name is always an option available to 
> everyone.  In the past, cases where someone outed another who chose to 
> use a pseudonym have had severe consequences.  There has also always 
> been strong opposition to any proposal that users must sign up with real 
> names.


See you acknowledge that there is a problem when wiki activity is 
allowed to be associated with a named person. Yet the collation and 
aggregation of data which may make identification easier. What benefit 
does processing data about individual editors have?



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[wiki-list]

Risker wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 16:38,  wrote:
> 
>>
>> People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well
>> have a static IP address. Besides simply writing down that data is
>> aggregated does not make it right. If its violation of personal data
>> right for Germans why should it be any less of a violation for
>> Spaniards, French, Americans, British, or the Chinese? Don't the German
>> pages also have links to privacy statements?
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Perhaps the point here is that it is not illegal in the place where the
> servers are housed, or where the WMF exists.


Just because something isn't illegal on one location doesn't mean that 
one has to do it, or that it is right to do it, or that one will get 
general accolades for doing so. Jerry Lee Lewis discovered that in 1958.


> I do find it kind of curious to see such a hostile response to the
> long-time, well-known privacy policy for a group of projects devoted to
> education, research and openness of information, particularly one
> where  each editor is personally and directly responsible for each edit s/he
> makes.  Publishing one's words on WMF projects is a *public* act, something
> that is made clear with every time someone opens an "edit" tab.  (If it
> isn't on the projects you work on, then it ought to be.)
> 

The issue is the aggregation and collation of the data and making it 
available to others. Why would you consider that some one's edit history 
is any less personal than what they borrow from the library?

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Domas Mituzas]

Hi, wiki-list!

> No ethics here then.

Excuse me, what is your complaint? 

I don't really get the point you are trying to make. 

There are few simple things, but apparently you have problems to grasp them :) 

1. Your readership data is not revealed to third parties. Your point "if a UK 
ISP published a list of all its users site visits." is complete bullshit and 
does not apply at all in this discussion.

2. As an editor, you are participating in a collaborative process, which has 
quite a lot of meritocracy, so your contribution to the project matters. The 
crap you are suggesting is "let's make every contribution fully anonymous so 
nobody would be able to track anything". I'm not sure your suggestion would 
work well in Wikipedias. 

3. Pseudonyms are not associated with individuals, unless those individuals 
want those pseudonyms to be associated with them. 

4. Editors are exposed to edit trails all the time, via RecentChanges, 
Special:Contributors, Watchlists, article histories, etc. Such information _is_ 
public. 

5. Germans are more sensitive to privacy issues, and they have probably 
strictest privacy laws in the world. OTOH, look at (2).

6. You seem to demand banning underage editing, which is quite important 
Wikipedian demographic :)

7. We have ethics of open collaborative project that is providing knowledge to 
the world. This is not tinfoil hat association. GTFO, if you want to imply that 
we don't have ethics here, just because it doesn't fit your paranoid POV. 

Domas
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Why should Wikimedians meet?

[Ray Saintonge]

Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> In 2006 Wikimania in Boston there was a brief, informal meetup of
> chapter committee, existing chapters boards members and people thinikg
> to establish their own chapters. I don't know if it was the results of
> only this meeting but several weeks/months after this meeting
> Wikimedia Israel, Wikimedia Taiwan and Wikimedia Netherlands were
> established mainly by people who attended this meeting.

IIRC there was also provision for chapters people to get together on the 
day after the Frankfurt Wikimania ended in 2005.

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Ray Saintonge]

wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Domas Mituzas wrote:
>   
>>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
>>> an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
>>> make public statements about a user.
>>>   
>> we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with
>> pseudonym.
>> 
> And? People use the same pseudonym on more than one site just as they 
> use the same password on more than one site. Besides some people even 
> enter their real name.
>   

Using a pseudonym or a real name is always an option available to 
everyone.  In the past, cases where someone outed another who chose to 
use a pseudonym have had severe consequences.  There has also always 
been strong opposition to any proposal that users must sign up with real 
names.

Really wanting to maintain anonymity and privacy requires a measure of 
personal responsibility.  You absolutely should not expect the nanny 
state to come to your rescue every time you fuck up.

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[wiki-list]

masti wrote:
> On 08/03/2010 10:04 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Domas Mituzas wrote:
 The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
 an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
 make public statements about a user.
>>>
>>> we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with
>>> pseudonym.
>> And? People use the same pseudonym on more than one site just as they
>> use the same password on more than one site. Besides some people even
>> enter their real name.
> 
> this is their problem not ours. How do you know this is their real name? 
> Anything that looks like a name can be as "nicky" as any random list of 
> letters
> 

So if they are stupid or not sophisticated enough to hide behind 
anonymity then tough we'll exploit their personal data. Any thing they 
give away is fair game. Sound like the justification of hackers and 
phishers.

No ethics here then.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Risker]

On 3 August 2010 16:38,  wrote:

>  Risker wrote:
> > On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas  wrote:
> >
> >>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an
> >>> individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make
> >>> public statements about a user.
> >>
> >> we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with
> pseudonym.
> >>
> >> otoh, whatever people talk here about aggregation seems to be uneducated
> >> blabber by people who don't know Special:Contributions exists (that also
> >> groups/aggregates data by user).
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Precisely my thought. I cannot speak for other projects, but the account
> > creation page on English Wikipedia includes some privacy warnings and
> links
> > directly to the WMF privacy policy, as does every single page on the
> > project.  By creating an account, one implicitly accepts the terms of the
> > privacy policy, including the potential for aggregation of edits.
> >
>
>
> People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well
> have a static IP address. Besides simply writing down that data is
> aggregated does not make it right. If its violation of personal data
> right for Germans why should it be any less of a violation for
> Spaniards, French, Americans, British, or the Chinese? Don't the German
> pages also have links to privacy statements?
>
>
>

Perhaps the point here is that it is not illegal in the place where the
servers are housed, or where the WMF exists.

I do find it kind of curious to see such a hostile response to the
long-time, well-known privacy policy for a group of projects devoted to
education, research and openness of information, particularly one
where  each editor is personally and directly responsible for each edit s/he
makes.  Publishing one's words on WMF projects is a *public* act, something
that is made clear with every time someone opens an "edit" tab.  (If it
isn't on the projects you work on, then it ought to be.)

Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[masti]

On 08/03/2010 10:38 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Risker wrote:
>> On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas  wrote:

> People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well
> have a static IP address. Besides simply writing down that data is
> aggregated does not make it right. If its violation of personal data
> right for Germans why should it be any less of a violation for
> Spaniards, French, Americans, British, or the Chinese? Don't the German
> pages also have links to privacy statements?


because other countries laws do not mark IP as personal data? Same as 
cars licence plates. Some people drive car with same licence plates for 
years. And so what?

masti

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[masti]

On 08/03/2010 10:04 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Domas Mituzas wrote:
>>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
>>> an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
>>> make public statements about a user.
>>
>>
>> we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with
>> pseudonym.
>
> And? People use the same pseudonym on more than one site just as they
> use the same password on more than one site. Besides some people even
> enter their real name.

this is their problem not ours. How do you know this is their real name? 
Anything that looks like a name can be as "nicky" as any random list of 
letters

masti

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[wiki-list]

Risker wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas  wrote:
> 
>>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an
>>> individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make
>>> public statements about a user.
>>
>> we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with pseudonym.
>>
>> otoh, whatever people talk here about aggregation seems to be uneducated
>> blabber by people who don't know Special:Contributions exists (that also
>> groups/aggregates data by user).
>>
>>
> 
> Precisely my thought. I cannot speak for other projects, but the account
> creation page on English Wikipedia includes some privacy warnings and links
> directly to the WMF privacy policy, as does every single page on the
> project.  By creating an account, one implicitly accepts the terms of the
> privacy policy, including the potential for aggregation of edits.
> 


People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well 
have a static IP address. Besides simply writing down that data is 
aggregated does not make it right. If its violation of personal data 
right for Germans why should it be any less of a violation for 
Spaniards, French, Americans, British, or the Chinese? Don't the German 
pages also have links to privacy statements?


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Risker]

On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas  wrote:

>
> > The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an
> > individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make
> > public statements about a user.
>
>
> we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with pseudonym.
>
> otoh, whatever people talk here about aggregation seems to be uneducated
> blabber by people who don't know Special:Contributions exists (that also
> groups/aggregates data by user).
>
>

Precisely my thought. I cannot speak for other projects, but the account
creation page on English Wikipedia includes some privacy warnings and links
directly to the WMF privacy policy, as does every single page on the
project.  By creating an account, one implicitly accepts the terms of the
privacy policy, including the potential for aggregation of edits.

Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[wiki-list]

Domas Mituzas wrote:
>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
>> an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
>> make public statements about a user.
> 
> 
> we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with
> pseudonym.

And? People use the same pseudonym on more than one site just as they 
use the same password on more than one site. Besides some people even 
enter their real name.

> otoh, whatever people talk here about aggregation seems to be
> uneducated blabber by people who don't know Special:Contributions
> exists (that also groups/aggregates data by user).
> 

That there are multiple publications of processed user data does not 
excuse the aggregation is simply makes it all the worse.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Domas Mituzas]

> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an 
> individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make 
> public statements about a user.


we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with pseudonym.

otoh, whatever people talk here about aggregation seems to be uneducated 
blabber by people who don't know Special:Contributions exists (that also 
groups/aggregates data by user).

Domas
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[wiki-list]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 19:33,   wrote:
>> Currently the data collection and processing doesn't follow its
>> recommended code of good practice of the UKs DPA and may even be in
>> breach of it:
>> http://www.ico.gov.uk/ebook/ebook.htm
> 
> That's quite a long document. You could point out the specific bits
> being violated?


Probably most of it. P26 to start with. Page12 retention, p13 security 
of data, p14-16. All of section 5, ...



>> One wonders what the response would be if a UK ISP published a list of
>> all its users site visits.
> 
> That's completely different. Everyone knows (or can be reasonably
> expected to know, anyway) that when they edit a page their username or
> IP address, the time and date and what they edited will be stored and
> made publicly available. We're just talking about making that publicly
> available information available in a different way. I'm pretty sure
> the UK's privacy laws don't forbid that, although I don't doubt what
> people have said about German law.
> 

The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an 
individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make 
public statements about a user.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Thomas Dalton]

On 3 August 2010 19:33,   wrote:
> Currently the data collection and processing doesn't follow its
> recommended code of good practice of the UKs DPA and may even be in
> breach of it:
> http://www.ico.gov.uk/ebook/ebook.htm

That's quite a long document. You could point out the specific bits
being violated?

> One wonders what the response would be if a UK ISP published a list of
> all its users site visits.

That's completely different. Everyone knows (or can be reasonably
expected to know, anyway) that when they edit a page their username or
IP address, the time and date and what they edited will be stored and
made publicly available. We're just talking about making that publicly
available information available in a different way. I'm pretty sure
the UK's privacy laws don't forbid that, although I don't doubt what
people have said about German law.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[wiki-list]

Robert Rohde wrote:
> Personally, I don't see any intrinsic problem with different wiki
> communities having different policies about what kinds of auxiliary
> content they will accept (as long as it doesn't interfere with the
> basic mission of the project).
> 
> I will say though that trying to control the ways that already public
> data might be aggregated is pretty unexpected from my American
> viewpoint.   It is also seems pretty clear that aggregation of edit
> statistics is perfectly acceptable within the larger WMF Privacy
> Policy.  Hence, I think the German Wikipedia community would find it
> nearly impossible to enforce their position on privacy with respect to
> the actions of most external third parties.  It even seems likely to
> me that if the same information appeared on EN or Meta, that they
> would have trouble finding a consensus for deletion within those
> communities.

Currently the data collection and processing doesn't follow its 
recommended code of good practice of the UKs DPA and may even be in 
breach of it:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/ebook/ebook.htm

One wonders what the response would be if a UK ISP published a list of 
all its users site visits.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[wiki-list]

Sebastian Moleski wrote:
>> 
> That's not quite what the rule tries to accomplish. Rather, the point is
> this: personal data being public does not allow anyone to aggregate such
> data in a way such that the result is still tied to individual people (also
> called 'profiling'). Why is that so? Because according to this German point
> of view, people have the right to control what their personal data is being
> used for. Since, when setting up an account on MediaWiki, there's no
> explicit statement saying that your editing data may be aggregated in such a
> manner, MediaWiki users didn't give permission to such aggregation and
> therefore such aggregation may not take place. Therefore, such aggregation
> without opt-in can't be published on German Wikipedia or on the Toolserver
> (which is run by Wikimedia Deutschland and therefore subject to German law).
> 
> I understand that this position may seem odd to a lot of people, especially
> if they come from the US or UK. I'm just stating a perception that is very
> common here.
> 


That isn't odd to me. Where does anyone sign to give permission for 
their editing history to be aggregated and scrapped? There is no such 
permission granted, and as many are under 18 they do not have the legal 
capacity to enter into such agreements anyway.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation

[CherianTinu Abraham]

+ all of us ! :(

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Belayet Hossain  wrote:

> I am very shocked. :(
> I'll definitely miss you my friend.
>
> Belayet [[User:Bellayet]]
> --
> Belayet Hossain
> http://www.facebook.com/bellayet
> http://twitter.com/bellayet
> http://bellayet.wordpress.com (Bangla)
> Knowledge is universal
>  ...so share it.
>
> Hillel
> If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
> If I am only for myself, what am I?
> If not now, when?
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Marcus Buck]

  An'n 03.08.2010 18:58, hett Marcus Buck schreven:
>An'n 03.08.2010 09:13, hett emijrp schreven:
>> User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User
>> contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login
>> status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users edited
>> and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user
>> contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users.
> Perhaps you could compare it to this situation:
> It's not illegal to look at a house from a public place. It's not
> illegal to use binoculars in a public place. It's not illegal to take
> photos in a public place. It's not illegal to follow a person. It's not
> illegal to look into someone's trash can. It's not illegal to enter
> someone's childrens' school. But if you do this all day long to a single
> person, you are a stalker and legal action may be taken against you.
> Just because collecting public data is legal doesn't mean that
> aggregating it is legal. And German law is less lax with privacy than
> other laws.

Just to be clear, with this comparison I am referring to the first 
aggregation tool that created a analysis of edits over daytime and other 
statistics. That was the reason for the policy in the first place. I 
don't think that emijrp's tool violates German privacy law, but it 
violates the policy.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Marcus Buck]

  An'n 03.08.2010 09:13, hett emijrp schreven:
> User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User
> contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login
> status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users edited
> and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user
> contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users.
Perhaps you could compare it to this situation:
It's not illegal to look at a house from a public place. It's not 
illegal to use binoculars in a public place. It's not illegal to take 
photos in a public place. It's not illegal to follow a person. It's not 
illegal to look into someone's trash can. It's not illegal to enter 
someone's childrens' school. But if you do this all day long to a single 
person, you are a stalker and legal action may be taken against you. 
Just because collecting public data is legal doesn't mean that 
aggregating it is legal. And German law is less lax with privacy than 
other laws.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Sebastian Moleski]

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> That's pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The German
> Wikipedia is entitled to create whatever policies it likes as long as
> they don't go against global policy (and being more restrictive isn't
> against the global privacy policy) or against the fundamental
> principles of the movement. I think this policy is ridiculous
> (Sebastian's analogy to cookies is very unconvincing - the
> contributions page is already public, the analogy could be used to
> argue to the removal of all attribution, but if edits are going to be
> attributed (and, of course, they are) then the information is going to
> be public and making a rule that says only people with the time and
> technical expertise to write their own contributions analysis script
> are allowed access to contribution statistics doesn't make any sense
> to me at all), but it's not up to me.
>

That's not quite what the rule tries to accomplish. Rather, the point is
this: personal data being public does not allow anyone to aggregate such
data in a way such that the result is still tied to individual people (also
called 'profiling'). Why is that so? Because according to this German point
of view, people have the right to control what their personal data is being
used for. Since, when setting up an account on MediaWiki, there's no
explicit statement saying that your editing data may be aggregated in such a
manner, MediaWiki users didn't give permission to such aggregation and
therefore such aggregation may not take place. Therefore, such aggregation
without opt-in can't be published on German Wikipedia or on the Toolserver
(which is run by Wikimedia Deutschland and therefore subject to German law).

I understand that this position may seem odd to a lot of people, especially
if they come from the US or UK. I'm just stating a perception that is very
common here.

By the way, neither the original poster nor the discussion on German
Wikipedia implied that this point of view has to be applied to other wikis
like Meta or Spanish Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Sebastian
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Thomas Dalton]

On 3 August 2010 09:04, James Alexander  wrote:
> While I disagree with the policy I'm not sure we can say that they aren't
> allowed to make it. I think a more restrictive policy would be allowed just
> not less restrictive.

That's pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The German
Wikipedia is entitled to create whatever policies it likes as long as
they don't go against global policy (and being more restrictive isn't
against the global privacy policy) or against the fundamental
principles of the movement. I think this policy is ridiculous
(Sebastian's analogy to cookies is very unconvincing - the
contributions page is already public, the analogy could be used to
argue to the removal of all attribution, but if edits are going to be
attributed (and, of course, they are) then the information is going to
be public and making a rule that says only people with the time and
technical expertise to write their own contributions analysis script
are allowed access to contribution statistics doesn't make any sense
to me at all), but it's not up to me.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Pedro Sanchez]

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Robert Rohde  wrote:

> I will say though that trying to control the ways that already public
> data might be aggregated is pretty unexpected from my American
> viewpoint.   It is also seems pretty clear that aggregation of edit
> statistics is perfectly acceptable within the larger WMF Privacy
> Policy.  Hence, I think the German Wikipedia community would find it
> nearly impossible to enforce their position on privacy with respect to
> the actions of most external third parties.  It even seems likely to
> me that if the same information appeared on EN or Meta, that they
> would have trouble finding a consensus for deletion within those
> communities.
>
> So, if the Germans wish to have a more restrictive privacy policy
> governing their own content, then that seems fine, but I suspect they
> would have a difficult uphill battle to extend that decision beyond
> their own immediate sphere of influence.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>

That was basicaly my point I think you express it much more clearly.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation

[church.of.emacs.ml]

On 08/03/2010 12:01 AM, Cary Bass wrote:
> It is with deep regret that I tell you I will be leaving the staff of 
> the Wikimedia Foundation at the end of December.

Hi Cary,

this is truly sad news for us!
I'm not sure how the foundation is supposed to replace you. (I'm
guessing a piece of paperboard will be the first step ;)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Brion%22_and_Ward.jpg )

Cary, I wish you all the best for your new path.
And I hope to be able to continue to work with you as a volunteer :)

Kind regards,
Tobias (User:Church of emacs)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Pedro Sanchez]

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Sebastian Moleski  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> to give a little insight here: about two years ago the German Wikipedia
> community reached consensus that, for the page
>(...)
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

If I understand correctly emijrp here's the issue.
1) There's a global policy on data
2) German wikipedia have a more strict interpretation
3) Emijrp claims his page on spanish wikipedia doesn't break the
global policy (or any eswiki policy)
4) And while it's not allowed on dewiki (by a local policy, therefore
getting deleted) local policies of a wikipedia are, by definition of
local, only applied on that wiki.

User is not complaining that page violates global policy, only local one.
And emijrp points that global policy considers editcount as public.

Now people say "yes, but dewiki has a more strict policy", but again
this is not abotu dewiki (correctly) being able to have stronger local
policies.

This is similar to the issue a few weeks ago where a wiki decided to
enact a policy banning some images. It's a local policy, being applied
on that wiki. But noone expects such a stronger image policy to be a
valid reason for deletion on other wikis.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Free translation memory

[David Gerard]

On 1 August 2010 04:08, stevertigo  wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Jimmy O'Regan  wrote:

>> Open-Tran: http://open-tran.eu/
>> Is something like translatewiki.
>> Software here: http://code.google.com/p/open-tran/
>> They also provide their databases for download.
>> For running your own server:
>> TinyTM: http://tinytm.sourceforge.net/
>> Translate Toolkit includes an XML-RPC based translation memory server.

> The idea here is interesting as Google is using Wikipedia articles to
> improve its translation tools, which remain proprietary. If Wikimedia
> ran its own translation toolkit, would that change the paradigm a bit?


Probably. Same reason cloning reCaptcha would be a good idea.


> Would that somehow compel Google to open up its translation data to
> us, as an exchange for using our content for its proprietary tools?


No.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

[David Gerard]

On 3 August 2010 14:33, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 14:31, Nathan  wrote:

>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw
>> The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal
>> of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the
>> words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well done, Mike.

> At least he didn't actually reference "Arkell v. Pressdram".


He comes close, though. Do be sure to read the letter:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pdf


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

[David Gerard]

On 3 August 2010 14:31, Nathan  wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw
> The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal
> of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the
> words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well done, Mike.


At least he didn't actually reference "Arkell v. Pressdram".


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

[Nathan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw

The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal
of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the
words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well done, Mike.

~Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Banner ads in sitenotice

[David Gerard]

On 3 August 2010 02:32, Brandon Harris  wrote:
> On 8/2/2010 6:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote:

>> A lot of the complaints I heard regarding the Vector rollout were based in
>> the fact that the Wikimedia Usability team has subverted and bastardized the
>> term "usability" in an attempt to impose purely aesthetic choices on the
>> broader community.

>        This reads to me like you're trying to start a fight with the Usability
> team, and I don't rightly cotton to that idea.  The team is comprised of
> many people, all with different opinions to be sure - but they are all
> *dedicated to the mission.*
>        So you should assume good faith, even if you disagree.


This is a strange usage of "assume good faith" that assumes all
criticism must necessarily be assumption of bad faith.

It is observed and documented that the Usability team worked in a
manner separated from the community, and that they forced their views
upon the community with blunt reversion when challenged. And that
these actions caused *severe* problems with the community.

Acknowledging severely negative factual events that not only actually
occurred, but were apologised for by the perpetrators, does not
somehow imply that the people doing these things did them deliberately
or with malicious intent, as your message seems to imply.

That these observed behaviours were later acknowledged as severely
problematic, and that some effort was gone to in order to make sure
they did not recur, is not a reason to try to block acknowledgement
that these problems did in fact occur, which is the obvious result of
what you here posit. Please don't do this.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Why should Wikimedians meet?

[Oliver Keyes]

Agreed. A good example; on the English Wikipedia, I'm a massive law nerd
with 40-something legal GAs and FAs to my name. I'd never even have studied
the subject if it wasn't for a group of Wikipedians, some of whom have later
helped me with or collaborated on articles. The importance of social
interaction cannot be understated, and it's why I have no truck with some of
the more severe "OMG WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MYSPACE" people. People come here to
build a collaborative encyclopaedia, yes, not to socially interact - but the
key word there is "collaborative". Social contact is inevitable and
incredibly helpful to us as a community; hells, it's what *makes us* a
community and not just a hundred thousand people who independently agree
that Wikipedia is nifty.

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:50 AM, James Alexander  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Keegan Peterzell  >wrote:
>
> > This has been an interesting thread to follow, there should be one
> > non-Wikimania, because it does matter.  I've met several Wikimedians at
> the
> > couple meet-ups I've been to with whom on-wiki I had many disagreements
> > with.  Meeting face to face clears that air with the human contact.
>  James
> > Forrester is the champion of meetups for good reason.  I met him in D.C.,
> > far from where I live, while he was in for less than 24 hours, far from
> > where he lives.  I butt heads with MZMcBride many times, but I slept on
> his
> > couch.  It's not just about localization for chapters; the opportunity to
> > travel and meet those whom you've known online for a very long time or
> only
> > by the periphery is a great experience.
> >
> > --
> > ~Keegan
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> >
> >
>
> This is exactly right. I can not even begin to explain the impact that
> meetups have had on my view of the projects as a whole especially for those
> I've met but for everyone else too. Even very infrequent personal and
> social
> contact can be hugely rewarding I think both for the contributers and the
> projects as a whole. I've always felt we should do more both in person and
> online when possible (IRC or Voicechat for example). I've toyed with the
> thought of trying to get the WMF to install a mumble server for people to
> talk on ;) or just setting one up myself I do think the impact that social
> interaction has on trust/creativity and general cooperation is hugely under
> appreciated by a lot of people on wiki (and off for that matter).
>
> James Alexander
> james.alexan...@rochester.edu
> jameso...@gmail.com
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Banner ads in sitenotice

[Oliver Keyes]

So if the incentive to improve it will end and the people who contribute
will switch over.. you have nothing to complain about, because the quote
unquote "imposed" skin will die out. End of problem.

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:55 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Brandon Harris wrote:
> > This reads to me like you're trying to start a fight with the Usability
> > team, and I don't rightly cotton to that idea.  The team is comprised of
> > many people, all with different opinions to be sure - but they are all
> > *dedicated to the mission.*
>
> I wasn't aware "cotton" could be used a verb. Thanks for that. Your point
> is
> hollow, though.
>
> > So you should assume good faith, even if you disagree.
>
> When there's a financial incentive to change the interface, the interface
> is
> going to change, regardless of whether it's an improvement or necessary. I
> think this is partially (perhaps more than partially) the reason that
> Wikimedia is now shifting away from large grants in favor of small
> donations. (Sue may have said as much explicitly, I'd have to look.) And,
> for what it's worth, I think it's a smart shift.
>
> Brandon Harris wrote:
> > It is possible for long-term or power-users of Wikimedia software to
> > change the skin they use if they find serious fault with Vector.
>
> Oliver Keyes wrote:
> > Impose? You know it can be turned off, right?
>
> Being able to disable the skin is one of the reasons it won't see
> improvement. It's far less effort to switch your personal skin back to the
> old default (which is what thousands of people have done) than battle those
> who have imposed (yes, imposed) the new skin. And when the power-users and
> long-term contributors (those who have accounts‹anonymous users can't
> change
> their skin) switch back, the incentive to work on improving the skin
> greatly
> diminishes.
>
> This is a basic principle of interface design; I'm sure there's a Wikipedia
> article about it somewhere.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Mike.lifeguard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, James Alexander wrote:
> That being said I'm not totally sure that basic info like edit counts should
> be disallowed since most of them are given by the software itself (and still
> is) not to mention the toolserver. Perhaps more complex things (which are
> currently disallowed by the toolserver without opt-in for example). I know
> for example that X!s tool is required to get opt in to show broken down
> stats like per month/time of day/graphs.

Keep in mind that the Toolserver is bound by German privacy laws, which
are very strong.

- -Mike
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkxX9oUACgkQst0AR/DaKHtwjgCeJVkzyfD1fJCCQ2F7h1j15P4O
SZEAn3bTAudmg60Xk4wMwo8PM2xck4Ti
=p4SZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Domas Mituzas]

Hi!

> The privacy policy is clear. Your number of edits is public. And it can be
> published in aggregated forms by other uses. And if you edit Wikipedia, you
> accept the Privacy Policy. Also, on the top of the Privacy Policy page you
> can read:

Foundation privacy policy is what kind of information foundation releases. 
In this case foundation has already released the data, and publishing it may or 
may not be the scope of project, but it is not 'privacy policy' anymore, but 
inclusion policy. 
The very same information can be hosted at many other places, including google 
spreadsheets or any random paste bin. 

Domas
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Robert Rohde]

Personally, I don't see any intrinsic problem with different wiki
communities having different policies about what kinds of auxiliary
content they will accept (as long as it doesn't interfere with the
basic mission of the project).

I will say though that trying to control the ways that already public
data might be aggregated is pretty unexpected from my American
viewpoint.   It is also seems pretty clear that aggregation of edit
statistics is perfectly acceptable within the larger WMF Privacy
Policy.  Hence, I think the German Wikipedia community would find it
nearly impossible to enforce their position on privacy with respect to
the actions of most external third parties.  It even seems likely to
me that if the same information appeared on EN or Meta, that they
would have trouble finding a consensus for deletion within those
communities.

So, if the Germans wish to have a more restrictive privacy policy
governing their own content, then that seems fine, but I suspect they
would have a difficult uphill battle to extend that decision beyond
their own immediate sphere of influence.

-Robert Rohde

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Sebastian Moleski]

Hi all,

to give a little insight here: about two years ago the German Wikipedia
community reached consensus that, for the page
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BZ (which is basically user
statistics and ranking), an opt-in is required. That means only those users
may be listed there who have added their name to
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beitragszahlen/Opt-In.

The reasoning behind this approach is simple: just because a piece of
personal data is public, the aggregation of such data isn't automatically
also public. Why is that so? Because such aggregations can provide insights
into editing habits and other behavior of the person behind that user
account which touches on their privacy. A similar analogy is: just because
cookies exist and are public information from a website's perspective
doesn't make it acceptable to generate viewing profiles and analyzing
browsing patterns because that inforation touches the user's privacy.

Why did the German community decide this? Germans have traditionally (at
least since 1983) been particularly conscientious about personal privacy.
The constitutional court here even claimed a basic right to control how
one's personal data is used by others, regardless of whether that data is
made public or not at some point in time. Retrieving, storing, using,
aggregating, and publishing personal data is regulated by fairly strict laws
that typically require compelling reasons for such activities before they
are allowed - or the person's explicit permission.

Some of these principles have also been codified at the European Union level
under the subject of "data protection" so this isn't a strictly German
approach (anymore).

Hope that helps,

Sebastian
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

That's shocking, indeed. What about all those pages on WMF sites who say 
"if you don't know who to ask, ask Cary" and similar things? :-/

Thomas Dalton, 03/08/2010 01:12:
> On 2 August 2010 23:51, Nathan  wrote:
>> Cary, you'll be missed. The WMF absolutely should try to replace you,
>> although I doubt they'll find someone who can do the job as well as
>> you have done.
> 
> Just to clarify, my understanding is that the plan is to replace Cary
> with multiple people, which has to be the only possible way forward!

+1

Nemo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[James Alexander]

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:56 AM, emijrp  wrote:

> 2010/8/3 Andre Engels 
>
> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp  wrote:
> >
> > > Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you
> can
> > > see:
> > >
> > > User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User
> > > contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login
> > > status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users
> > edited
> > > and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user
> > > contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users.
> > >
> > > The privacy policy is clear. Your number of edits is public. And it can
> > be
> > > published in aggregated forms by other uses. And if you edit Wikipedia,
> > you
> > > accept the Privacy Policy. Also, on the top of the Privacy Policy page
> > you
> > > can read:
> > >
> > > The content of this page is an official policy approved by the
> Wikimedia
> > > Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented,
> > eroded,
> > > or ignored on local Wikimedia projects.
> > >
> > > But now, German Wikipedia has an "official local privacy policy" which
> is
> > > opposed to that.
> >
> > No. The privacy policy tells which information, and under which
> > circumstances *may* be divulged.
>
>
> And it says that the number of edits is public.
>
>
> > It is not against the policy to provide less information than that, only
> to
> > provide more information.
> >
>
> But it is against the policy to write a new policy which converts the
> number
> of edits in a private data, until the user gives permission to be used and
> published in statistics.
>
>
> > At least, that is how I always read the privacy policy.
> >
> > --
> > André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
> >
> >
>
>
While I disagree with the policy I'm not sure we can say that they aren't
allowed to make it. I think a more restrictive policy would be allowed just
not less restrictive.

That being said I'm not totally sure that basic info like edit counts should
be disallowed since most of them are given by the software itself (and still
is) not to mention the toolserver. Perhaps more complex things (which are
currently disallowed by the toolserver without opt-in for example). I know
for example that X!s tool is required to get opt in to show broken down
stats like per month/time of day/graphs.


James Alexander
james.alexan...@rochester.edu
jameso...@gmail.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[emijrp]

2010/8/3 Andre Engels 

> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp  wrote:
>
> > Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you can
> > see:
> >
> > User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User
> > contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login
> > status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users
> edited
> > and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user
> > contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users.
> >
> > The privacy policy is clear. Your number of edits is public. And it can
> be
> > published in aggregated forms by other uses. And if you edit Wikipedia,
> you
> > accept the Privacy Policy. Also, on the top of the Privacy Policy page
> you
> > can read:
> >
> > The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia
> > Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented,
> eroded,
> > or ignored on local Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > But now, German Wikipedia has an "official local privacy policy" which is
> > opposed to that.
>
> No. The privacy policy tells which information, and under which
> circumstances *may* be divulged.


And it says that the number of edits is public.


> It is not against the policy to provide less information than that, only to
> provide more information.
>

But it is against the policy to write a new policy which converts the number
of edits in a private data, until the user gives permission to be used and
published in statistics.


> At least, that is how I always read the privacy policy.
>
> --
> André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation

[Raimond Spekking]

Cary, I will miss you. It is/was/will be a pleasure to work with you.

I wish you all the best for your next phase of life. Hope to see you in
Haifa :)

Raymond.

Am 03.08.2010 00:01, schrieb Cary Bass:
> It is with deep regret that I tell you I will be leaving the staff of 
> the Wikimedia Foundation at the end of December.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[Andre Engels]

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp  wrote:

> Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you can
> see:
>
> User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User
> contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login
> status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users edited
> and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user
> contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users.
>
> The privacy policy is clear. Your number of edits is public. And it can be
> published in aggregated forms by other uses. And if you edit Wikipedia, you
> accept the Privacy Policy. Also, on the top of the Privacy Policy page you
> can read:
>
> The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia
> Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded,
> or ignored on local Wikimedia projects.
>
> But now, German Wikipedia has an "official local privacy policy" which is
> opposed to that.

No. The privacy policy tells which information, and under which
circumstances *may* be divulged. It is not against the policy to
provide less information than that, only to provide more information.
At least, that is how I always read the privacy policy.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

[emijrp]

Hi all;

Some days ago I was contacted in my user talk in Spanish Wikipedia about a
request for deletion in German Wikipedia.[1] An user opened a request for
deletion[2] for an user edits ranking[3] which my bot updates regularly in
German Wikipedia (also in many more projects[4][5]). Finally, the German
version of this ranking it was deleted some days ago.

I don't speak German, but, using a translator, I can understand that the
reason for the deletion was that German Wikipedia has got a "local privacy
policy" whichs avoid generating statistics of users which are not listed in
an opt-in page.[6]

The number of edits is a public number. For example, you can know my number
of edits in German Wikipedia, looking at[7][8], and the "official" top users
in[9]. So, what is the problem? data privacy or that this list was saved in
German Wikipedia?

Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you can
see:

User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User
contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login
status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users edited
and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user
contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users.

The privacy policy is clear. Your number of edits is public. And it can be
published in aggregated forms by other uses. And if you edit Wikipedia, you
accept the Privacy Policy. Also, on the top of the Privacy Policy page you
can read:

The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia
Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded,
or ignored on local Wikimedia projects.

But now, German Wikipedia has an "official local privacy policy" which is
opposed to that.

Finally, I would like to know what is the position of the Wikimedia
Foundation on this. I think that it is an important question, for users, for
researchers and for curious people.

Thanks,
emijrp

[1]
http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario_Discusi%C3%B3n:Emijrp&diff=39192815&oldid=39180637
[2]
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/24._Juli_2010#Benutzer:Emijrp.2FList_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29
[3]
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Emijrp/List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/List_of_Wikimedians_by_number_of_edits
[5] Look at the interwikis:
http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Emijrp/List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
[6] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beitragszahlen/Opt-In
[7]
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=users&ususers=Emijrp&usprop=editcount
[8] http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Emijrp
[9] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm#wikipedians
[10] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l