On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Tisza Gergőgtisza@gmail.com wrote:
Tisza Gergő <gtisza@...> writes:
I do argue that it is not in violation of the privacy policy (whether the people here find it acceptable is another question).
Just to make it clear, I don't think accordance with the privacy policy automatically entitles one to do something. The PP is a minimum set of requirements strong enough to assure users and weak enough to not hinder ourselves (as it is difficult to change it); if something is permitted by the policy, but the WMF or the developers or the relevant community is against it, then it will not be done.
That's a reasonable view.
So instead of talking about the privacy policy (which would be routinely violated if spread of IP data to non-WMF-owned servers would indeed be a violation - consider WikiMiniAtlas, for example) it would be more productive to talk about whether such a use is acceptable, and if not, what can be done to make it so.
Agreed. This is a matter of a local project wanting to maintain a long-standing feature or service without adverseley affecting anyone, violating shared meta-community norms, or having to wait for bottlenecks in centralized implementation. It is very wiki to want to find ways to fix things yourself.
(For example, would it help if WM-HU took ownership? We could also write a complementary privacy policy for it, stating that it will never be used for any other reason than statistics, who has access, how long the raw logs are kept etc.)
Perhaps other messages in this thread will shed light here... I hear people outside of hu:wp expressing a desire to centralize and maintain a bottleneck for the simple reason that a bottleneck is easier to police.
SJ