Wikipedia, together with BBC.com, ebay, Last.fm and LiveJournal.com was rated as "generally privacy aware" by Privacy International, the LA Times reported today in its Business section. That rating was the highest awarded by the watchdog organization.
Goggle was at the bottom, with a rating of "comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy"
-- Jossi
On 6/11/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
Wikipedia, together with BBC.com, ebay, Last.fm and LiveJournal.com was rated as "generally privacy aware" by Privacy International, the LA Times reported today in its Business section. That rating was the highest awarded by the watchdog organization.
Goggle was at the bottom, with a rating of "comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy"
http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf
I asked them for further information. So far, I am unconvinced about their methodology.
Mathias
On 11/06/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
Wikipedia, together with BBC.com, ebay, Last.fm and LiveJournal.com was rated as "generally privacy aware" by Privacy International, the LA Times reported today in its Business section. That rating was the highest awarded by the watchdog organization.
Goggle was at the bottom, with a rating of "comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy"
http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf
I asked them for further information. So far, I am unconvinced about their methodology.
I did chuckle at the irony of the description of Wikipedia policy as "unverifiable"... :-)
On 6/11/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I did chuckle at the irony of the description of Wikipedia policy as "unverifiable"... :-)
That was said with regard to the retention policy. Here are some questions I have: Are raw logs still discarded after two weeks? If so, what information is kept? What information is kept for CheckUser purposes, and for how long?
On 6/11/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/11/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I did chuckle at the irony of the description of Wikipedia policy as "unverifiable"... :-)
That was said with regard to the retention policy. Here are some questions I have: Are raw logs still discarded after two weeks? If so, what information is kept? What information is kept for CheckUser purposes, and for how long?
assumeing CheckUser worked the way it used to logs go back to 12 May 2007
On 6/12/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
Last I heard is that the logs go back 2 months since the last update to the wiki software.
Actually it's 3 months.
—C.W.
On 6/13/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
Last I heard is that the logs go back 2 months since the last update to the wiki software.
Actually it's 3 months.
The privacy policy certainly needs to be updated, then.
--- Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
Wikipedia, together with BBC.com, ebay, Last.fm and
LiveJournal.com
was rated as "generally privacy aware" by Privacy
International, the
...
Goggle was at the bottom, with a rating of
"comprehensive consumer
surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy"
http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf
I asked them for further information. So far, I am unconvinced about their methodology.
And you deserve a true Wikipedian stamp for asking, even if you work for Google, own stock in Google, or work for an organization that is paid by Google, in which case you really should mention that now and hand off your data collection efforts to someone that's not a shill. Ideally, someone that's not hostile to Google either.
SourceWatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Privacy_International
Wikipedia's article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_International
ACLU's description (listed along with EFF as a privacy site): http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/15680res20010823.html
EFF lists PI as another resource in it's Privacy Top 12 (it also includes a Google search link, but no link to Wikipedia): http://www.eff.org/Privacy/eff_privacy_top_12.php
Google's own ACLU site only results for PI: http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Sear...
Google's own EFF site only results for PI: http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Sear...
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
On 11/06/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
I asked them for further information. So far, I am unconvinced about their methodology.
And you deserve a true Wikipedian stamp for asking, even if you work for Google, own stock in Google, or work for an organization that is paid by Google, in which case you really should mention that now and hand off your data collection efforts to someone that's not a shill.
Is your normal conversational style to start off by accusing your correspondent of having malicious and dubious motives? For goodness' sake...
On 6/11/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/06/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
I asked them for further information. So far, I am unconvinced about their methodology.
And you deserve a true Wikipedian stamp for asking, even if you work for Google, own stock in Google, or work for an organization that is paid by Google, in which case you really should mention that now and hand off your data collection efforts to someone that's not a shill.
Is your normal conversational style to start off by accusing your correspondent of having malicious and dubious motives? For goodness' sake...
The only connection evident to me is that (along with Cheney Shill) the original questioner was using Gmail.
Mr/Ms Shill, there is a grey area between being a provocative gadfly and mere trolldom. That was on the far side of grey into trolling. I am all for encouraging gadflys on this list; I am also all for removing trolls. You generally behave yourself better than that. If you stop behaving yourself, you will probably find yourself moderated or dropped from the list, and I will shed no tears.
Disclaimer: I am also a happy customer of Gmail's free service, despite having had my own domains for 15+ years.
On 6/11/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/06/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
I asked them for further information. So far, I am unconvinced about their methodology.
And you deserve a true Wikipedian stamp for asking, even if you work for Google, own stock in Google, or work for an organization that is paid by Google, in which case you really should mention that now and hand off your data collection efforts to someone that's not a shill.
Is your normal conversational style to start off by accusing your correspondent of having malicious and dubious motives? For goodness' sake...
The only connection evident to me is that (along with Cheney Shill) the original questioner was using Gmail.
It's time to confess, some of my friends are Googlers and yes, I talk to them as well. As a Wikimedian, I belong to a group that owns Google stocks.
Mathias
--- Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
It's time to confess, some of my friends are Googlers and yes, I talk to them as well. As a Wikimedian, I belong to a group that owns Google stocks.
Thanks for your honesty. I was serious about the true Wikipedian stamp. I don't consider using Google or Gmail a conflict of interest; there are no shortage of other search engines and free email accounts. The stock holding group is a concern. An independent mutual fund is uncontrollable for the most part and not a concern. A group your actively participating in and have influence in is. I'm happy to let the consensus of the group decide whether you're a reliable intermediary with Privacy International. I also hope that the links I provided prove useful to any research on them and their studies.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
On 11/06/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
It's time to confess, some of my friends are Googlers and yes, I talk to them as well. As a Wikimedian, I belong to a group that owns Google stocks.
Thanks for your honesty. I was serious about the true Wikipedian stamp. I don't consider using Google or Gmail a conflict of interest; there are no shortage of other search engines and free email accounts. The stock holding group is a concern. An independent mutual fund is uncontrollable for the most part and not a concern. A group your actively participating in and have influence in is.
The group in question - "As a Wikimedian, I belong to a group..." is, in fact, us. As of this time last year, we owned 187 shares in Google - they were a donation from someone in 2005-6.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf
"The Organization's investments are comprised of 187 shares of Google common stock which are carried at fair value using quoted market prices in accordance with SFAS No. 124, Accounting for Certain Investments Held by Not-for-Profit Organizations."
On 6/11/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The group in question - "As a Wikimedian, I belong to a group..." is, in fact, us. As of this time last year, we owned 187 shares in Google
- they were a donation from someone in 2005-6.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf
"The Organization's investments are comprised of 187 shares of Google common stock which are carried at fair value using quoted market prices in accordance with SFAS No. 124, Accounting for Certain Investments Held by Not-for-Profit Organizations."
Indeed. They were a donation, and Wikimedia has since sold them. So even on those tenuous grounds Mathias is still clear.
-Kat
--- Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 6/11/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The group in question - "As a Wikimedian, I belong to a
group..." is,
in fact, us. As of this time last year, we owned 187
shares in Google
- they were a donation from someone in 2005-6.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf
"The Organization's investments are comprised of 187
shares of Google
Indeed. They were a donation, and Wikimedia has since sold them. So even on those tenuous grounds Mathias is still clear.
Yes, quite the dramatic performance they put on over an obvious non-issue. Maybe we have 3 (with a 4th arriving) encyclopedia dramatica stars in our midst.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/
On 12/06/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
"The Organization's investments are comprised of 187 shares of Google common stock which are carried at fair value using quoted market prices in accordance with SFAS No. 124, Accounting for Certain Investments Held by Not-for-Profit Organizations."
Indeed. They were a donation, and Wikimedia has since sold them. So even on those tenuous grounds Mathias is still clear.
I thought we'd sold them, but I couldn't check at short notice...
[I remember someone saying we also get a sizable amount of cash donations indirectly from Google - they have a good charitable donation-matching program, and lots of their employees like us]
G'day Andrew,
The group in question - "As a Wikimedian, I belong to a group..." is, in fact, us. As of this time last year, we owned 187 shares in Google
- they were a donation from someone in 2005-6.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf
"The Organization's investments are comprised of 187 shares of Google common stock which are carried at fair value using quoted market prices in accordance with SFAS No. 124, Accounting for Certain Investments Held by Not-for-Profit Organizations."
That's terrible!
(We should never say "are comprised of". They're composed of, or they comprise, but they aren't comprised of.)
On 6/11/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
engines and free email accounts. The stock holding group is a concern.
It is not my decision to sell or buy stocks. In WMF's case, the stocks were donated to us, to my knowledge.
I'm happy to let the consensus of the group decide whether you're a reliable intermediary with Privacy International.
Actually, I do/did not request permission to ask anyone for further details about a paper they released nor do I consider this to be something that needs permission. On the contrary, I wish that more people (including those who are right now filling my keyword notification list with their journalistic output would have asked PI for more details before writing about that preliminary report).
Mathias "may I keep my friends?" Schindler
--- Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
engines and free email accounts. The stock holding
group
is a concern.
It is not my decision to sell or buy stocks. In WMF's case, the stocks were donated to us, to my knowledge.
I'm not sure why you bothered mentioning it then.
Mathias "may I keep my friends?" Schindler
I was willing to forego the question of cronyism. Since you bring it up, however: If you have any friends or girlfriends or family that's trying to get you a job at Google or who financially depends/benefits in some significant way from Google, that would be a conflict of interest.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
On 6/11/07, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
It's time to confess, some of my friends are Googlers and yes, I talk to them as well. As a Wikimedian, I belong to a group that owns Google stocks.
hah.
In the interests of painful overdisclosure, the IT consulting company I work with has placed people at Google on contract, including people I know, and a former boss of mine works there in their UNIX administration team.
It's a small valley...
On 6/11/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/06/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
I asked them for further information. So far, I am unconvinced about their methodology.
And you deserve a true Wikipedian stamp for asking, even if you work for Google, own stock in Google, or work for an organization that is paid by Google, in which case you really should mention that now and hand off your data collection efforts to someone that's not a shill.
Is your normal conversational style to start off by accusing your correspondent of having malicious and dubious motives? For goodness' sake...
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Yes. Check out his old talk pages at [[Special:Undelete/User talk:Halliburton Shill]].
Rory