Maybe not news, considering our traffic rankings.... but this is one of the
first "real" studies of Wikipedia use I've seen, conducted by the
prestigious Pew Internet project and released in April 2007 in a "data
memo".
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Wikipedia07.pdf
The first few paragraphs:
" More than a third of American adult internet users (36%) consult the
citizen-generated online encyclopedia Wikipedia, according to a new
nationwide survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. And on a
typical day in the winter of 2007, 8% of online Americans consulted
Wikipedia.
There has been ongoing controversy about the reliability of articles on
Wikipedia. Still, the Pew Internet Project survey shows that Wikipedia is
far more popular among the well-educated than it is among those with lower
levels of education. For instance, 50% of those with at least a college
degree consult the site, compared with 22% of those with a high school
diploma.
And 46% of those age 18 and older who are current full- or part-time
students have used Wikipedia, compared with 36% of the overall internet
population.
In addition, young adults and broadband users have been among those who are
earlier adopters of Wikipedia. While 44% of those ages 18-29 use Wikipedia
to look for information, just 29% of users age 50 and older consult the
site. In a similar split, 42% of home broadband users look for information
on Wikipedia, while just 26% of home dial-up users do so."
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Florence Devouard [mailto:Anthere9@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:15 AM
>To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed
>
>David Gerard wrote:
>> On 01/05/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes I think most people are missing this point. The identities won't
>>> be made public, they won't be posted on wiki, they will be privately
>>> archived. The Foundation will be the only one having the information.
>>
>>
>> Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that
>> the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of
>> someone needing it kept secure.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>
>
>This calls for a lawyer to be the one in charge of handling such
>information.
>
>ant
That just gives you someone to blame. Lawyers are often quite loose with document security. What you need is good document security.
Fred
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:22:39 +0100
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] PD in Israel
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <fbad4e140705010722s130d0cc9uea6bf31f11ea3b51(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 30/04/07, Luiz Augusto <lugusto(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, is impossible to link to a page at the wikilivres.info from
> > Wikipedia, Wikibooks (or from Wikisource itself) without
> > using a external
> > link. This isn't userfriendly.
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map
>
> Put a sensible request in there and a meta admin will probably approve
> it. Then you just need to wait until the interwiki script is run
> again.
>
>
> - d.
I certainly would approve such a request, it sounds reasonable to me.
However there may be a bit of a lag before it takes effect, I was asking
devs about this and I got the impression the script is not run very often.
Mostly when new internal projects are added rather than on any sort of
regular schedule.
Larry Pieniazek
Work mail: lpieniaz at us.ibm.com
Hobby mail: lar at miltontrainworks.com
Hoi,
We have been working on a procedure for the closure of projects for some
time. The reason for this is that the language committee has been asked to
do this for several projects. It is not something we liked to do as it will
not gain us any popularity. However, we hope that having a proper procedure
will help us all.
Key points:
- Language committee deals primarily with language issues.
- The process will take at least a month, this should allow for a
resolution of the issue in the meantime without getting any official
involvement
- We define a need for a "Meta Arbitration Committee", we have not
defined it as such
- When it is within the remit of the language committee to decide for
the end of a project, it will be possible to appeal a decision by the "Meta
Arbitration Committee"
- When it is accepted that a project is to end, there will be a
proposal to the board for consideration
- Requesting the end of a project is not a zero sum game, it can go
the other way and result in sanctions against the person, group, project
requesting it
Thanks,
GerardM
PS In the ideas of the Language committee the Kanuri language would go to
the Incubator.
On 4/30/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> I don't think so. We do not have access to non-public data. There are
> messages posted everywhere that this is just a mailing list and that they
> should not share any private information.
>
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George
> Herbert
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:21 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; Requests from blocked users
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF resolution on access to non-public
> datapassed
>
> On 4/30/07, Kat Walsh <kat(a)mindspillage.org> wrote:
> > The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users
> > with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to
> > provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers,
> > oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users
> > holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
> > majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
> >
> > To read the details of the resolution, please see:
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
> >
> > A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or
> > confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is
> > delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In
> > consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the
> > reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private
> > information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling
> > this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for
> > their own actions.
> >
> > Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF
> > volunteer coordinator, at cbass(a)wikimedia.org. We will also attempt to
> > contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however,
> > please spread this message to those in your communities.
> >
> > For the Wikimedia Foundation,
> > Kat Walsh
>
> Clarification query: Does this apply to the unblock-en-l volunteer
> staff as well?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert(a)gmail.com
The concern I have, and the reason that I want the foundation to
clarify, is that we do get people's real identity info in many cases,
some of them send us real name, "real" email addresses, in some cases
even home addresses, phone numbers, etc. in the process of identifying
to work on an unblock.
The Checkuser info in comparison only amounts to IP address backtracking.
We don't require real ID for most cases, but it has come by in many
many incidents. In some cases it's sent without us even asking for
it, and in other cases (of alledged sockpuppetry) it's been negotiated
as a way to prove that you're someone else.
Our concern over this info was why we shut the unblock-en-l list down
from open to closed a month or two ago, after all.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com