On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Johan Jönsson
wrote:
> One of the problems here is that much of the information about how the
> Wikimedia sites collect information is so spread out, because different
> parts of the WMF have different solutions for different problems (e.g.
> Analytics or Fundraisi
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> Adam,
>
> Thank you for providing an informative and accessible answer to Trillium's
> relevant questions. It's truly heartening to see the organization
improving
> in its ability to communicate its intentions, etc. I hope that when broad
> con
On Monday, 2 May 2016, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Oliver Keyes > wrote:
>
> > One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash is
> > not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on account of it barely
> > being classifiable as a technology.
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash is
> not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on account of it barely
> being classifiable as a technology.
>
There is one use of Flash in our tech stack: audio ou
Adam,
Thank you for providing an informative and accessible answer to Trillium's
relevant questions. It's truly heartening to see the organization improving
in its ability to communicate its intentions, etc. I hope that when broad
consensus among staff is reached (as you express in footnote [1]),
Hi Trillium,
These are great questions to ask, thank you for keeping the privacy
conversation on track!
As a technical employee of the Wikimedia Foundation who would have been
involved if we were planning significant changes to expand or limit
tracking, I can confirm that nothing rotten is in the
It seems like you can either deny James's knowledge of the technical/legal
overlap or ask him questions, but probably not both :p.
One element I can answer: no, it does not contain flash objects, flash is
not a technology included in the Wikimedia stack on account of it barely
being classifiable a
> It's certainly possible that this is only 'obvious' to me because of my
> knowledge of outside organizations or law but it doesn't surprise me.
Your reply is not obvious to me. I understand that your employment is
exclusively with WMF and you do not appear to be particularly
qualified (or experi
Edits didn't affect the content of the policy actually. Also a cookie
policy is essentially a legal stuff, I'd be surprised to *don't *see the
legal team editing it.
As a "sockpuppet investigator" I never rely upon cookies, I prefer
fingerprints and social security numbers.
Vito
2016-05-01 23:40
I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it seemed
kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT thing to
edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right?
Is WMF doing something new (or newish, maybe I'm a little late in picking up on
this) with cookies? C
Honestly this is kind of a bewildering set of hypotheticals to me.
You worry wikimedia is gathering new data and maybe selling it to marketers
and maybe releasing it to the community, or not, or some of them, or all of
them, based on:
An edit titled 'fixed two errors in cookie names' which...well
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Trillium Corsage
wrote:
> I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it
> seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT
> thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right
>
I won't/can't comment on the rest of yo
12 matches
Mail list logo