Hoi, An e-mail address is not universal nor is it compulsory to have one and as a consequence it is not the solution that you think it is. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So you are checked. You have to appreciate that by your own words, there must be a reasonable suspicion. You even insist that it is published that you have been checked. This means that it is now generally known that you are under a reasonable suspicion... How nice, that you are now known to
have
a tarnished reputation...
Actually when you are checked, and it is not published that you were checked, you are much better off. When everyone can demand checking
because
THEY are suspicious, publication of check results will only increase the amount of vigilantism. Really, you are much better off when trusted
people
do their checking and keep their confidences. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
SlimVirgin wrote:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
2008/8/8 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
> The board intends to vote on this version, but before we do, I
wanted
to
> provide one last opportunity for your feedback. While the policy deals at length with who has access it is very
silent
about when all these persons are allowed to access my data and actually access my data. The only thing somehow related to this was "As a general principle, the access to, and retention of, personally identifiable data in all projects should be minimal and should be
used
only internally to serve the well-being of the projects." which is somehow a bit vague. Who defines what is well-being? How is this controlled? Who does guarantee that a nosy checkuser doesn't just
look
up my user information, revealing my employer, the wikipedia user name of my boyfriend and other friends just for fun? How would I
even
know?
Elian, this is exactly the situation we have on the English
Wikipedia.
Jimbo takes the view that checkusers may be conducted more or less at random, for no reason, and the checkusers follow that lead. In other words, the Foundation's checkuser policy is being openly flouted.
We've been told we can't complain to the Ombudsman commission because they only deal with violations of the privacy policy, not the checkuser policy. We've been told we have no right to know whether we've been checked. Attempts to introduce such a rule have led to the checkusers saying they will not follow it. And when we do find out that we've been checked, the only concern of the checkusers is to
find
out who told us, and to punish that person. It really is a very bad situation for the Foundation, one that's bound to lead to trouble sooner or later.
Sarah
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I personally don't mind being checked. Whenever, by whomever, so long as the results are not disclosed. (disclosure, not checking, is
governed
by the privacy policy.
Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkid0QcACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtVy0QCeMQHlFaTDaQxNSNcE8CMzzknY hBwAoK05fUsbUBc4gXcWkZsfEazCNvA/ =GMaV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I do believe that checking is covered as well. And if it's not, it needs to be. Checks should only be conducted at least upon reasonable suspicion.
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If I have a "Contact me" email address, I can be easily notified that I have been checked without "tarnishing my reputation", and I can choose to make that as public or nonpublic as I like. "You have been checkusered" by email would result in no tarnishment of a public reputation while properly notifying the target. Granted, in some circumstances, suppression of notification may be appropriate, but such suppression should be logged and justified.
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l