I would personally recomend you people to send your questions to RonaldBhttp://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:RonaldB(the *one and only* person who receive those datas)
I'm not dutch, but that system is in place since Jully 2007http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sokpop&diff=next&oldid=8590452, and Huib is the first one to complain about it - a 4 years working system with only 1 complain seems to be just fine to me. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
2011/7/10 Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com
Seem to work though.
Does it? Where is the evidence for this? I'm not being hasty in forming a firm judgement here - other than to say it doesn't, on the face of it, seem like a good idea for a project to be doing this.
And if the details of the handling of private data is well outlined and
confined it could be a good thing to have.
Indeed, if. But again, no word or evidence of such things so far.
I do think this is a serious problem that needs investigating:
- The argument that this is essentially an optional function is not really
appealing, and is easily said by those who are not blocked. Saying "if you want to edit send a stranger your identity" does not sit comfortably with me. (this is just my personal view, but I include it for completeness)
- Saying this is disconnected from Wikipedia/the Foundation is a red
herring
- it is organised via the website, so for any user utilising this service
it looks to some extent "official". The Foundation have a reasonable duty of care to its users and at this point they are not able to properly audit or oversight the handling of personal details.
- The whole idea is a "false flag" anyway because identity is beyond
trivial to fake. So, it is not about identity, but about some slightly high barrier of action for an individual to take - the idea being it filters out the more casual bad guys. In which case; a more suitable alternative to identity could be used. Perhaps a hand written letter asking for an unblock? That seems much better system.
- EU data protection laws *explicitly* apply to the handling of personal
data by private individuals. And as an enabling medium Dutch Wikipedia could easily also be considered a controller within the scope of the law (they are intentionally very broad). This means if the data does end up being misused then it will be a major blow; hence it seems sensible to require some investigation of this process. -- As an addendum to that the process described on the Dutch Wikipedia at the very least need to comply with EU directives. For example the person processing the data must reveal his name and address (I realise that is likely to happen, but I see no clarity on the matter and no oversight to ensure this occurs) and the details of *precisely* what will be done with the data need to be published (and kept to) -- We need to establish (prefferably with a lawyer) to what extent this process is considered necessary or relevant; because if it is one or neither then it is non-compliant.
There is also an extended risk here; something simple like an admin unblocks the account of "Bram van Rijn" and, when unblocking him, says "There you go Bram, enjoy editing!". Something simple and innocent is now non-compliant.
For that reason people handling identity in a capacity relating to Wikipedia, even semi-officially, need to be well vetted.
I have argued this before several times in relation to other such things on English Wikipedia, and I realise my view may be stronger than the majorities. But in this case it appears not even a cursory check is being undertaken.
Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l