Real name editing is a very different obligation depending on how common
your real name is and how many edits you make. There are only a handful of
people who share my real name, if my surname was Smith then real name
disclosure would be a much lighter imposition.
It is also a very different
The discussion here has been great. I've been keeping out of it since I
have an active research project and I don't want to seed my own ideas, but
to circle back to the original post... if anyone here would like to
contribute their experiences with privacy on Wikipedia to our project,
please
I use my own name on WMF sites. I was warned against doing that not
long after I started editing back in 2004. Ten years later and as a
hothead editor having my real identity known does not seem to be a problem.
Most editors use an alias. I don't know why. What are they afraid of?
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Alan Liefting alieft...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
Rather than ensuring privacy of editors the WMF should DEMAND that editors
make their identity known. I am sure that this may cure some of the many
problems that we are seeing on WMF projects.
Having said all that
There's also a massive problem with the non-dodgy countries. I edit
under my real name. I've had multiple death threats from people
physically proximate to me. The WMF should not DEMAND this, or even
ask for it. The idea that oh, this is laudable, you should be proud!
ignores that there are
There is an important difference here. The WMF does not publicly log the IP
addresses of visitors to the site.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#your-use-of-wm-sites It
does however publish the IP addresses of editors who are not logged in.
I could understand the elitist claim if the
I propose we run a study. We will survey random editors
I always find it curious that we had dozens or hundreds of threads on
having IPs in history: this worry is very elitist, at most few millions
people ever edited.
What about the hundreds millions users who never edited? What are
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Privacy Study Looking for Volunteers
Wikipedia is set up such that if you don't take the measures mentioned
in
the OP, you are dox'ing yourself. Users are not aware of this.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 4:33 PM, David Carson carson63...@gmail.com
wrote
Mingus
Date:03-29-2015 4:36 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: David Carson
Cc: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Privacy Study Looking for Volunteers
Wikipedia is set up such that if you don't take the measures mentioned
in
the OP, you are dox'ing yourself. Users are not aware
On 30 March 2015 at 16:00, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I propose we run a study. We will survey random editors and ask them if
they realize that there is a chance they are leaking enough information for
their identity to be revealed. *Even if they are logged in.*
What
(GMT-05:00)
To: David Carson
Cc: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Privacy Study Looking for Volunteers
Wikipedia is set up such that if you don't take the measures mentioned in
the OP, you are dox'ing yourself. Users are not aware of this.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 4:33 PM, David Carson
Just like the Netflix Prize, knowing which topics an entity is interested
in, and having access to text they have written, is, in many cases, enough
information to reveal who that person is, where they live, etc. You just
plug the data into Google and correlate away.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:19
div Original message /divdivFrom: Brian J Mingus
brian.min...@colorado.edu /divdivDate:03-29-2015 4:36 PM (GMT-05:00)
/divdivTo: David Carson carson63...@gmail.com /divdivCc: English
Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org /divdivSubject: Re: [WikiEN-l]
Privacy Study Looking
On 30 March 2015 at 00:24, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Just like the Netflix Prize, knowing which topics an entity is interested
in, and having access to text they have written, is, in many cases, enough
information to reveal who that person is, where they live, etc. You
Wikipedia is suing the NSA? Seriously?
On 28 Mar 2015 11:23, Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
It has worked up to now, but I'm thinking that, especially given Wikimedia
is suing the NSA, it is no longer justifiable. If the NSA can't track
citizens, Wikimedia shouldn't be
The WMF keeps data on an informed group of people, those who edit on WMF sites,
and for a fixed period of time, (apart of course from the public listing of IP
addresses).
If the NSA was only keeping data for as long as the WMF and only keeping data
on people who post on the NSA site then the
I think now that we are suing the NSA that it's deeply hypocritical to be
surveilling users. A quick fix: stuff the ip field with random numbers.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 8:38 AM, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
The idea of the IP being more private in the history/ public logs
Do you see the irony here?
The NSA needs to keep harvesting metadata in order to stop terrorism.
The WMF needs to keep harvesting metadata in order to stop vandalism.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
.at which point it can no longer be used for
.at which point it can no longer be used for checkuser or for
rangeblocks. I really don't see the hypocricy there. Are we:
1. Taking user data;
2. Storing it and not saying for how long;
3. Not telling the user we're taking it in the first place, and;
4. Not tellning anyone what we're using
In order:
1. Yes, the WMF is suing the NSA. There are a few threads/blog posts
about this people here can point you to.
2. Brian: The NSA needs to store data without the permission or
consent of the people generating it, sometimes through forcible
interception, decryption and the introduction and
At this point we're really getting somewhat off-topic; Brian, if you
want to continue this discussion about the trade-offs around privacy
and oversight, feel free to drop me an email. In the meantime, we
should probably leave the thread for the original subject ;)
On 29 March 2015 at 14:55,
In general people do not read privacy policies, nor do they understand what
IP addresses are or what you can do with them.
But if you recall, I simply stated that recording IP addresses is invasive.
And it is.
This is especially true when you know that your recordings are faciliating
the active
Yes, you did state that, but you equated the explanation and
circumstances with the NSA's behaviour, when in actual fact they are
very different. I note that while you've argued that privacy policies
aren't read, that's as far as your rebuttal goes.
There's no trump of one principle over another,
Somewhat off topic? That means we're somewhat on topic then, right? It sure
seems like we're on topic.
I would prefer it of the WMF took the initiative and asked the community
what they think about this issue as a whole. The discussion seems to have
lacked transparency up to now. We're suing the
Wikipedia:Free speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech)
is probably worth a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech
It's not directly about privacy but I think it clearly covers the ground
that Wikipedia is a project to create an online encyclopedia, not an
to fight spam, detect socks, and respond to
emergency@ issues, unless I've missed something?
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Original message
From: Brian J Mingus
Date:03-29-2015 4:36 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: David Carson
Cc: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Privacy Study
Hi Brian,
Dox'ing yourself? That's a pretty wild hyperbole.
But just to clarify: are you taking issue with the fact that not-logged-in
users have their IP addresses publicly visible? Or with the fact that all
edits have IP addresses privately recorded?
I originally thought you were talking
Hi David,
It is a bit of hyperbole, but reductio arguments have their role in helping
to make certain things clear.
If you force users to log in, you can still identify them. The IP address
is helpful, but not necessary.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:12 PM, David Carson carson63...@gmail.com
Hi Brian,
I'm still not entirely clear on your complaint. Are you talking about
Wikimedia (not random users, nor Wikipedia Administrators) having access to
IP addresses from system logs? Or something else? What does The IP address
is helpful, but not necessary mean?
Cheers,
David...
On Mon,
Just like the Netflix Prize, knowing which topics an entity is interested
in, and having access to text they have written, is, in many cases, enough
information to reveal who that person is, where they live, etc. You just
plug the data into Google and correlate away.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:19
The idea of the IP being more private in the history/ public logs (for
example a unique hash so that you know it's an IP but not where/what IP
) is one that I know has been discussed and is desired by a good number
within the foundation including within legal. I'll try to look for the
phabricator
A very precise timestamp would seem to suffice for attribution. Anyone
caring to prove they wrote something could take a video of them making the
edit, thus confirming the timestamp is them.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Elias Friedman elipo...@gmail.com wrote:
It's actually required so as
I don't see a need to change the copyright. Just switch from the IP address
to something that doesn't allow you to personally identify the user, but
allows the user to claim ownership over the post if they want to, by
recording some bit of information. I think a cryptographer could design a
nice
It has worked up to now, but I'm thinking that, especially given Wikimedia
is suing the NSA, it is no longer justifiable. If the NSA can't track
citizens, Wikimedia shouldn't be tracking them either. Seems simple :)
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Francesco Ariis fa...@ariis.it wrote:
On Wed,
I don't believe a different license is needed. CC licenses can be used
for anonymous works: The author is not given and does not have to be
credited, but everything else (attribution of the work and share-alike)
would stay the same. So a change in the terms of use to the effect of,
It's actually required so as to provide attribution as per the Creative
Commons and other licenses we operate under.
Sent from my Droid 4
Elias Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P
אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי
elipo...@gmail.com
יְהִי אוֹר
On Mar 27, 2015 4:15 AM, Francesco Ariis fa...@ariis.it wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:19:35PM -0400, Brian J Mingus wrote:
I think it's rather curious that edits to Wikipedia aren't private. Why log
the IP address? Why log anything? It's invasive.
I guess it's a sensible choice against abuse (vandalism) while still
allowing non registered users editing
Perhaps we should move to a different licensing model for future IP edits. CC0
for IP edits would be a more sensible license for edits by an IP where in many
cases no-one could attribute the edit to the individual who made it. If people
don't want to release their edits as CC0 they can always
Nice on paper, but the wiki-drama from the switch from GFDL was bad
enough for me.
Sent from my Droid 4
Elias Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P
אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי
elipo...@gmail.com
יְהִי אוֹר
On Mar 27, 2015 9:41 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps we should move to a
I'm not seeing a reference to IP addresses in this thread or the
associated research page (my ctrl-f-fu may just be weak, though): as
to why IPs are logged server-side, well, checkuser is a useful tool
and that's how rangeblocks work.
On 25 March 2015 at 13:19, Brian J Mingus
I think it's rather curious that edits to Wikipedia aren't private. Why log
the IP address? Why log anything? It's invasive.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Andrea Forte andrea.fo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I'm representing a team of researchers from Drexel University who are
researching
Hi all,
I'm representing a team of researchers from Drexel University who are
researching privacy practices among Wikipedia editors. If you have ever
thought about your privacy when editing Wikipedia or taken steps to protect
your privacy when you edit, we’d like to learn from you about it.
42 matches
Mail list logo
