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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Jon
<scream(a)datascreamer.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM, elisabeth bauer
> <eflebeth(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/8/8 Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)verizon.net>et>:
>>
>>> 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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l