roc wrote:
By "sexual harassment", THD was trying to explain the online harassment/stalking/solicitation accident in which a female user at Chinese Wikipedia was threaten to be raped. It does not mean the kind of sexual harassment in a working environment. In addition to THD's description, the victim's real life name was used in the threat; this name has never been disclosed by the victim on Wikipedia.
We respect the freedom of speech and other civil rights, but we are not obligated to provide a place for any speech or act, especially when such an act seriously violates other people's civil rights or safety. I totally agree with Gregory that we protect the visitor/user's privacy because of our high ethical values and the furthering of interests of both the WMF and the public. We are not going to protect everyone's privacy at all times, especially when it is *necessary* to protect our values or interests or safety. Indeed, in Wikipedia's privacy policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy, link found at bottom of every page on Wikipedia), there are several circumstances that allow the release of IP information:
- In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from
law enforcement. ... 6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.
I believe that tolerating such a personal violence threat (using the word "rape" and the victim's undisclosed real-life name) would be a neglect to the safety of our users and the health of our community, which is essential to Wikimedia's success and missions.
Regarding policies and procedures, I think that WMF should either dictate privacy policies of all its projects or give authorizations to the community/people it trusts, as long as it conforms with the best interests of WMF, the project, and the public.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
I believe that the
privacy policy of Chinese Wikipedia is governed by the WMF. In this privacy policy, it is stated that "personally identifiable data...may be released by...users with CheckUser access", does it mean that checkusers/stewards are authorized to release IP information of a registered user without seeking approval for each case from the Board or Executive?
They should not... except that it is little practical. Imagine that a checkuser checks the ip data of a vandal, then blocks the whole ip range in order to block the person. Or makes correlation with a vandal acting under ip... then, it is pretty easy to "guess" what the ip or ip range for the person is. In such case, release will occur somehow. Many checks done to protect the project itself (pure vandalism, sockpuppetry) will often reveal the ip.
However, if the check is done for investigation reasons (request by the police, by a government etc...), rather than to immediately protect the site from a raw attack, yeah, it would be very shocking that a checkuser reveals the information. To that date, I do not think it ever occured.
In this case, if a request was made to find out the ip of the user who issued the threats, I think the request should be made to the board/executive. But *mostly*, the request should be done either by a very trusted user, or more likely by a group of trusted editors. If a totally unknown person mentions threats have been issued in a language we can not understand, and request to know the ip of another editor, I'd say the request should not be fullfilled.
Ant
Best regards,
roc
2006/11/13, shi zhao shizhao@gmail.com:
see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
"6 Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public."
plese help!
2006/11/11, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Essentially I agree. It all comes down to mature judgement, and who is capable of exercising it. We have a lot of people who can too easily jump to conclusions.
Yes. One question is whether we want every language and project community to develop its own policy on these matters, or whether this is an area where it makes sense to have a single policy that is localized. This goes for checkuser and oversight as well. Perhaps an in-between solution makes sense, where the WMF requires that local policies identify and propose a group that consists of the most trusted users before granting these privileges on a language/project level.
Perhaps it should also be a requirement that users who have the technical permission to use these tools disclose their identity to the WMF, so we have someone to deal with in case of abuse. -- Peace & Love, Erik
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/ My blog: http://talk.blogbus.com CNBlog: http://blog.cnblog.org/weblog.html Social Brain: http://www.socialbrain.org/default.asp cnbloggercon: http://www.cnbloggercon.org/
[[zh:User:Shizhao]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l