Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

removed at example

Jun 6, 2009, 12:20 PM

Post #26 of 39 (876 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

Or by one of the WMF developers removing the web bug.

2009/6/6 John at Darkstar <vacuum [at] jeb>

> You can make claims about what you yourself wants or believe, but do
> *not* claim that your personal beliefs reflects legal issues for
> Foundation. If Foundation needs to make claims about what is and whats
> not a legal issue, then such claims should be made by Mike.
>
> John
>
> Brian skrev:
> > I also have not seen a clear explanation of what those who would like to
> > generate statistics using web bugs plan to do with that data. How do they
> > plan to use the data, and why aren't the plethora of statistics now made
> > officially available by the WMF not satisfactory?
> >
> > You have bypassed the correct procedure. The amount of time that it takes
> > the WMF to accomplish goals can be frustrating. Getting them to make your
> > goal their goal can be frustrating. But it all has to start with you
> > presenting them with a coherent goal that takes all the constraints into
> > account. Then you need to get WMF approval which often involves getting
> > community approval.
> >
> > Let's be clear that the privacy policy is a legal issue for the WMF.
> > Volunteer admins cannot take user privacy into their own hands, under
> their
> > own interpretation. That's just not how it works!
> >
> >
> > 2009/6/6 Brian <Brian.Mingus [at] colorado>
> >
> >> This is another e-mail on this subject that just strikes me as flawed.
> >> These are not vague privacy fears - they are real privacy fears. I see a
> >> fundamental failure by those involved in this controversy to understand
> this
> >> point.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Tisza Gergő <gtisza [at] gmail> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Robert Rohde <rarohde@...> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> You may not be aware, but the relaying of page view data to third
> >>>> party analysis platforms has been tried on a number of occasions in
> >>>> the past and consistently shutdown. (I think this even includes cases
> >>>> before the Privacy Policy was adopted.)
> >>>>
> >>>> However, to my recollection there has never been a case that quite
> >>>> mirrors yours since we are talking about a privately hosted server
> >>>> administered by a highly trusted community member.
> >>> The (WM-DE-owned) toolserver ran a statistics script called WikiCharts
> for
> >>> a few
> >>> years, which worked with data relayed by Common.js from several
> >>> wikipedias,
> >>> including de and en. While that is not exactly the same situation (as
> the
> >>> WMF
> >>> has access to the toolserver), I think it proves my point that passing
> IP
> >>> data
> >>> to an (in the strict organizational sense) third-party server does not
> >>> necessarily violate the privacy policy, neither letter nor spirit, as
> long
> >>> as
> >>> that server remains within the larger WM community.
> >>>
> >>> It is important to understand that this is a much more general question
> >>> than
> >>> that of web statistics: any third-party service that interacts with the
> >>> standard
> >>> wiki user interface receives private data, whether it needs it or not,
> >>> because
> >>> the user interface (the HTML page) is "executed" in the user's browser,
> >>> and the
> >>> browser has to contact the third-party service, and it cannot hide its
> IP
> >>> in
> >>> that process. For example, we considered setting up some sort of spell
> >>> checking
> >>> service for hu.wp. That is something that cannot be done well centrally
> -
> >>> there
> >>> is too much difference between languages. And if you do it with a local
> >>> server,
> >>> it has to communicate with the user's browser, and could in theory log
> >>> requests
> >>> and correlate them with edits on the wiki, thus it has to conform with
> the
> >>> privacy guidelines. It would be a shame if all such uses would be
> blindly
> >>> forbidden because of vague privacy fears.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>> foundation-l [at] lists
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

vacuum at jeb

Jun 6, 2009, 12:28 PM

Post #27 of 39 (883 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an
unwanted privacy issue is very different from making claims about
something being a legal issue on the behalf of Foundation. Simply don't
do it.
John

Brian skrev:
> Or by one of the WMF developers removing the web bug.
>
> 2009/6/6 John at Darkstar <vacuum [at] jeb>
>
>> You can make claims about what you yourself wants or believe, but do
>> *not* claim that your personal beliefs reflects legal issues for
>> Foundation. If Foundation needs to make claims about what is and whats
>> not a legal issue, then such claims should be made by Mike.
>>
>> John
>>
>> Brian skrev:
>>> I also have not seen a clear explanation of what those who would like to
>>> generate statistics using web bugs plan to do with that data. How do they
>>> plan to use the data, and why aren't the plethora of statistics now made
>>> officially available by the WMF not satisfactory?
>>>
>>> You have bypassed the correct procedure. The amount of time that it takes
>>> the WMF to accomplish goals can be frustrating. Getting them to make your
>>> goal their goal can be frustrating. But it all has to start with you
>>> presenting them with a coherent goal that takes all the constraints into
>>> account. Then you need to get WMF approval which often involves getting
>>> community approval.
>>>
>>> Let's be clear that the privacy policy is a legal issue for the WMF.
>>> Volunteer admins cannot take user privacy into their own hands, under
>> their
>>> own interpretation. That's just not how it works!
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/6/6 Brian <Brian.Mingus [at] colorado>
>>>
>>>> This is another e-mail on this subject that just strikes me as flawed.
>>>> These are not vague privacy fears - they are real privacy fears. I see a
>>>> fundamental failure by those involved in this controversy to understand
>> this
>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Tisza Gergő <gtisza [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Rohde <rarohde@...> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You may not be aware, but the relaying of page view data to third
>>>>>> party analysis platforms has been tried on a number of occasions in
>>>>>> the past and consistently shutdown. (I think this even includes cases
>>>>>> before the Privacy Policy was adopted.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, to my recollection there has never been a case that quite
>>>>>> mirrors yours since we are talking about a privately hosted server
>>>>>> administered by a highly trusted community member.
>>>>> The (WM-DE-owned) toolserver ran a statistics script called WikiCharts
>> for
>>>>> a few
>>>>> years, which worked with data relayed by Common.js from several
>>>>> wikipedias,
>>>>> including de and en. While that is not exactly the same situation (as
>> the
>>>>> WMF
>>>>> has access to the toolserver), I think it proves my point that passing
>> IP
>>>>> data
>>>>> to an (in the strict organizational sense) third-party server does not
>>>>> necessarily violate the privacy policy, neither letter nor spirit, as
>> long
>>>>> as
>>>>> that server remains within the larger WM community.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is important to understand that this is a much more general question
>>>>> than
>>>>> that of web statistics: any third-party service that interacts with the
>>>>> standard
>>>>> wiki user interface receives private data, whether it needs it or not,
>>>>> because
>>>>> the user interface (the HTML page) is "executed" in the user's browser,
>>>>> and the
>>>>> browser has to contact the third-party service, and it cannot hide its
>> IP
>>>>> in
>>>>> that process. For example, we considered setting up some sort of spell
>>>>> checking
>>>>> service for hu.wp. That is something that cannot be done well centrally
>> -
>>>>> there
>>>>> is too much difference between languages. And if you do it with a local
>>>>> server,
>>>>> it has to communicate with the user's browser, and could in theory log
>>>>> requests
>>>>> and correlate them with edits on the wiki, thus it has to conform with
>> the
>>>>> privacy guidelines. It would be a shame if all such uses would be
>> blindly
>>>>> forbidden because of vague privacy fears.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>>> foundation-l [at] lists
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l [at] lists
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia at verizon

Jun 6, 2009, 1:22 PM

Post #28 of 39 (894 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

John at Darkstar wrote:
> Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an
> unwanted privacy issue is very different from making claims about
> something being a legal issue on the behalf of Foundation. Simply don't
> do it.
>
Privacy is not simply a legal issue, it's a general social concern. Our
privacy policy should not be treated as merely a legal document, it's an
effort to express part of our social compact. Unless it's a matter of
interpreting legal regulations somewhere else, I consider the developers
equally competent to address privacy issues. If Brion or Tim or Domas
identify an issue, they don't need to run to Mike every time to check
that it really is something that should be addressed.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

vacuum at jeb

Jun 7, 2009, 1:43 AM

Post #29 of 39 (877 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

Discussing something as a general social concern is one thing, claiming
that it is a wmf legal issue is something different.
John

Michael Snow skrev:
> John at Darkstar wrote:
>> Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an
>> unwanted privacy issue is very different from making claims about
>> something being a legal issue on the behalf of Foundation. Simply don't
>> do it.
>>
> Privacy is not simply a legal issue, it's a general social concern. Our
> privacy policy should not be treated as merely a legal document, it's an
> effort to express part of our social compact. Unless it's a matter of
> interpreting legal regulations somewhere else, I consider the developers
> equally competent to address privacy issues. If Brion or Tim or Domas
> identify an issue, they don't need to run to Mike every time to check
> that it really is something that should be addressed.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

removed at example

Jun 7, 2009, 8:54 AM

Post #30 of 39 (875 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

It is a WMF legal issue, in addition to being a social issue. No "claim" is
being made that its a legal issue, it's just a fact.

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 2:43 AM, John at Darkstar <vacuum [at] jeb> wrote:

> Discussing something as a general social concern is one thing, claiming
> that it is a wmf legal issue is something different.
> John
>
> Michael Snow skrev:
> > John at Darkstar wrote:
> >> Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an
> >> unwanted privacy issue is very different from making claims about
> >> something being a legal issue on the behalf of Foundation. Simply don't
> >> do it.
> >>
> > Privacy is not simply a legal issue, it's a general social concern. Our
> > privacy policy should not be treated as merely a legal document, it's an
> > effort to express part of our social compact. Unless it's a matter of
> > interpreting legal regulations somewhere else, I consider the developers
> > equally competent to address privacy issues. If Brion or Tim or Domas
> > identify an issue, they don't need to run to Mike every time to check
> > that it really is something that should be addressed.
> >
> > --Michael Snow
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

removed at example

Jun 7, 2009, 9:44 AM

Post #31 of 39 (877 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

Just to be clear, it has been claimed in this thread that the CheckUser
right also gives those admins the right to collect additional data on users
and analyze it. I've just read the privacy policy and that is not true.

You'll also find [[Privacy policy]] interesting, although you might decide
to edit it to make sure that it no longer mentions the word "legal" so that
your argument can continue to be true, at least to you.

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Brian <Brian.Mingus [at] colorado> wrote:

> It is a WMF legal issue, in addition to being a social issue. No "claim" is
> being made that its a legal issue, it's just a fact.
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 2:43 AM, John at Darkstar <vacuum [at] jeb> wrote:
>
>> Discussing something as a general social concern is one thing, claiming
>> that it is a wmf legal issue is something different.
>> John
>>
>> Michael Snow skrev:
>> > John at Darkstar wrote:
>> >> Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an
>> >> unwanted privacy issue is very different from making claims about
>> >> something being a legal issue on the behalf of Foundation. Simply don't
>> >> do it.
>> >>
>> > Privacy is not simply a legal issue, it's a general social concern. Our
>> > privacy policy should not be treated as merely a legal document, it's an
>> > effort to express part of our social compact. Unless it's a matter of
>> > interpreting legal regulations somewhere else, I consider the developers
>> > equally competent to address privacy issues. If Brion or Tim or Domas
>> > identify an issue, they don't need to run to Mike every time to check
>> > that it really is something that should be addressed.
>> >
>> > --Michael Snow
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l [at] lists
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

bdamokos at gmail

Jun 7, 2009, 10:13 AM

Post #32 of 39 (884 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

This might be going off topic, and not really helpful in finding a solution
(along the lines of wamping up WMF stats capabilities in the near future or
reinstating the huwiki solution in a way accpetable to the WMF and the hu.wp
community and possibly benefitting other communities, as well):

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus [at] colorado> wrote:

> Just to be clear, it has been claimed in this thread that the CheckUser
> right also gives those admins the right to collect additional data on users
> and analyze it. I've just read the privacy policy and that is not true.
>

I believe there was no such claim, if anything, it was pointed out that
setting up the stats engine didn't give access to information that was not
accessible before by the Checkusers (even if logged), and that most fears of
data being handled by the wrong hands are mitigated by the facts that the
data was handled by a CheckUser (and thus a) a person already with access to
said data and b) a person identified to the WMF and trusted by the
community*).

(*Not that I would want to introduce community trust into the argument, just
pointing out the inherent properties of being a CU.)

Best regards,
Bence Damokos
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

removed at example

Jun 7, 2009, 10:15 AM

Post #33 of 39 (870 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

I'm going off of statements like this:

" I happen to be the one who have created the Hungarian checkuser policy,
which is, as far as I know, the strictest one in WMF projects, and it's no
joke, and I intend to follow it."

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Bence Damokos <bdamokos [at] gmail> wrote:

> This might be going off topic, and not really helpful in finding a solution
> (along the lines of wamping up WMF stats capabilities in the near future or
> reinstating the huwiki solution in a way accpetable to the WMF and the
> hu.wp
> community and possibly benefitting other communities, as well):
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus [at] colorado> wrote:
>
> > Just to be clear, it has been claimed in this thread that the CheckUser
> > right also gives those admins the right to collect additional data on
> users
> > and analyze it. I've just read the privacy policy and that is not true.
> >
>
> I believe there was no such claim, if anything, it was pointed out that
> setting up the stats engine didn't give access to information that was not
> accessible before by the Checkusers (even if logged), and that most fears
> of
> data being handled by the wrong hands are mitigated by the facts that the
> data was handled by a CheckUser (and thus a) a person already with access
> to
> said data and b) a person identified to the WMF and trusted by the
> community*).
>
> (*Not that I would want to introduce community trust into the argument,
> just
> pointing out the inherent properties of being a CU.)
>
> Best regards,
> Bence Damokos
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

midom.lists at gmail

Jun 7, 2009, 10:17 AM

Post #34 of 39 (883 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

Hi!

> Are the developers lawyers?

IANAL.

> A developer claiming something has an
> unwanted privacy issue is very different from making claims about
> something being a legal issue on the behalf of Foundation. Simply
> don't
> do it.

I failed to phrase what I wanted to write you in a way, that I
wouldn't make me look like an arrogant prick, so I will not write it.
Let me tell something else, instead.

Anyway, WMF has always been standing for privacy of our users. I
wholeheartedly approve the privacy stance, which means that we don't
even consider exceptions when it comes to giving away private data. We
just don't give it away. This is why we opt out of phorm, this is why
we don't facilitate numerous researchers (or whomever hide behind
those names), and we don't even keep most of private data ourselves.

Someone on this thread said, that WMF keeps private data internally.
We don't have readership data, there're no such thing as "access logs"
in our farm, the closest one to the concept is "one out of overall
requests", which doesn't have long retention, and is used for short
term operational purposes. Every other private data point is the one
that is visible by checkusers, has both audit trail, and quite
restricted access to information (at least there are verification
procedures).

So, we tend to understand data privacy policies internally quite well,
that was incentive of written down privacy policy, and that has been
part of constant internal dialogue how to handle overall privacy. We
know that our reader privacy is quite good (especially if people use
TOR and HTTPS :), we know that we have to balance our contributor
privacy issues in order to be what we are. We err to the side of
privacy, as that is where we would have highest damages.

Anyway, I answered your question, IANAL, but I'm in one way or another
part of organization that has one. We asked the lawyer to describe our
intent and position, and he did. We're happy to enforce it.

And, Brian,
> Volunteer admins cannot take user privacy into their own hands,
> under their
> own interpretation. That's just not how it works!

You don't seen to have sufficient understanding how it works. :(

Domas

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

midom.lists at gmail

Jun 7, 2009, 10:18 AM

Post #35 of 39 (873 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

Hi!

> I believe there was no such claim, if anything, it was pointed out
> that
> setting up the stats engine didn't give access to information that
> was not
> accessible before by the Checkusers (even if logged), and that most
> fears of
> data being handled by the wrong hands are mitigated by the facts
> that the
> data was handled by a CheckUser (and thus a) a person already with
> access to
> said data and b) a person identified to the WMF and trusted by the
> community*).

checkusers don't have readership data.

Domas

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

removed at example

Jun 7, 2009, 11:07 AM

Post #36 of 39 (872 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists [at] gmail>wrote:

>
>
> And, Brian,
> > Volunteer admins cannot take user privacy into their own hands,
> > under their
> > own interpretation. That's just not how it works!
>
>
> You don't seen to have sufficient understanding how it works. :(
>
>
> Domas
>

Assuming you're not taking this out of context, please explain the
difference between how it works and my conception of how it works. Here we
have someone who violated the privacy policy and tried to rationalize it. I
explained how.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

midom.lists at gmail

Jun 7, 2009, 11:14 AM

Post #37 of 39 (872 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

Hi!

> Assuming you're not taking this out of context, please explain the
> difference between how it works and my conception of how it works.

Sorry, I misread your statement. I took "Volunteer admins" as
"Volunteer sysadmins" - my greatest apology.

BR,
Domas

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

jwales at wikia-inc

Jun 8, 2009, 11:24 AM

Post #38 of 39 (837 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

Couldn't the stats job you want run on toolserver?

Peter Gervai wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I wasn't subscribed to this list, since I usually try to avoid the
> politics around.
>
> I was notified, however, that some interesting claims were made and
> some steps taken (again) without any discussion whatsoever.
>
> First, let me tell it here again - as I have told it on a different
> list - that I am extremely disappointed by the lack of discussion
> before someone from outside seriously interfere with other project
> based on, as it turns out, incorrect informations. In the past people
> with privileges (if we ever considered them that way instead of people
> with work to be done) were more cautious. I would like you all
> fast-handed guys to slow down and talk first, get informed, and act
> later.
>
> I already commented elsewhere on vls, in summary I miss the discussion
> and I do not believe the case actually breached any privacy, but this
> isn't my concern now (as I'm in a bit of hurry).
>
> Regarding huwp, it would have been pretty easy to find out who to ask.
> Apart from the obvious choice of "anyone with any flags on huwp", it
> could've been easy to identify who made the changes, and ask them.
> Like, for example me.
>
> As far as I see, lots of wasted energies go around, like people
> planning how to block javascript, how to block counters, etc. It is
> the wrong way. The good way is, and I'm repeating myself again, is
> FIRST to get to know WHY these scripts are there in the first hand,
> what solution they have to solve. This is a crucial step, fellows,
> which you neglected to take. (And we all know that the reason is to
> create usage stats.)
>
> Next step should be examining whether there is anything this violates,
> like, Privacy Policy. In the case of Google this is debateable, since
> I don't know what is the scope of the data retention.
>
> However I completely do know about the Hungarian stats. Let me share
> the real information here, briefly, since I have to go soon, but I do
> not want to let you destroy something you're not aware of.
>
> The stats (which have, by surprise, a dedicated domain under th hu
> wikipedia domain) runs on a dedicated server, with nothing else on it.
> Its sole purpose to gather and publish the stats. Basically nobody
> have permission to log in the servers but me, and I since I happen to
> be checkuser as well it wouldn't even be ntertaining to read it, even
> if it wasn't big enough making this useless. I happen to be the one
> who have created the Hungarian checkuser policy, which is, as far as I
> know, the strictest one in WMF projects, and it's no joke, and I
> intend to follow it. (And those who are unfamiliar with me, I happen
> to be the founder of huwp as well, apart from my job in computer
> security.)
>
> If you would have gathered this knowledge (which means that the server
> is closed and run by an identified user to WMF), then you could have
> started the discussion.
>
> As it is obvious, don't make any interfering moves while discussing it
> for days, or even weeks, wouldn't change anything.
>
> What have you achieved with removing the code? You killed our stats,
> which provides us with the statistics originally WMF provided (same
> data content), but later killed off.
>
> We'll propose (huwp) some solutions on the problem, but I'll really
> have to go now. Tgr can help discussing it, and I'll thank him for his
> help in advance. :-)
>
> So, think about these in the weekend, I'm back on monday. I hop there
> can be an _useful_ discussion, with thinking people and not people
> acting on impulses.
>
> Peter Gervai
> Hungary
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

midom.lists at gmail

Jun 8, 2009, 12:00 PM

Post #39 of 39 (839 views)
Permalink

Re: Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2 [In reply to]

Hi!

> Couldn't the stats job you want run on toolserver?

Really, this isn't much of foundation-l issue - we have been
collecting and providing detailed article viewership statistics for
over a year.
People are building various applications on top of that data, like http://wikirank.com/en/Jimmy_Wales
- and we already handle the data processing task.

*shrug*, if anyone wants better standards, better interfaces, etc - it
all can be achieved, in one way or another, without sacrificing
privacy of our users.
As I've stated and will state again, we will err towards privacy, if
we have to err.

toolserver could be vehicle for some of data analysis and aggregation,
but currently users on it are not supposed to get private data either,
nor it is able to scale with overall content delivery infrastructure.

I'd like everyone to understand, that 'who reads what' is 1000x more
data (and hence more privacy issues) than 'who edits what'.
Just those who come and read about whatever they want to read, do not
have representation on this mailing list, so we have to have that in
mind too.

We're building service for much much larger group of people, and
interests of few should not be sacrificing privacy of everyone else.

BR,
Domas

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads