Hi.
This doesn't seem to have hit this list yet, so I'm posting here for general information and discussion.
Effective February 1, 2011, there are two substantive changes to the policies and procedures surrounding identifying to the Wikimedia Foundation.
The first change is that OTRS agents will now be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation. The second change is that the submitted information will now be retained, when it was previously destroyed.
This raises a number of questions: * Who made these decisions? * Why were these decisions made? * Who was consulted about these decisions? * Was potential impact to OTRS or other volunteer groups measured before these decisions were made? (This is particularly important given that (a) the collected information is not verified, raising questions about the virtue of this entire process; and (b) certain volunteers have already stated they will no longer volunteer in a particular capacity due to these changes.) * Will these decisions extend beyond OTRS agents? * As identification is primarily a legal issue, was legal counsel sought? (And if legal counsel was sought, who was involved, given the lack of a General Counsel currently?) * What will the data retention policies be for the collected information? * What will the data destruction policies be for the collected information? * Under what circumstances can this collected information be released? Does this information fall under the standard Wikimedia privacy policy? * Who has access to the submitted information (both in theory and in practice)?
Looking at this more broadly: * What's the virtue of identification? * Is there a reasonable rationale or justification for it, given that the identities are not verified? * Can the submitted information be verified? * Should the submitted information be verified?
In the interest of transparency, I should note that I've been involved in at least two discussions about identification on the English Wikipedia: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identification * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_accountability
I believe these issues are of interest to both the Wikimedia community and the outside community. As such, I've posted these questions to Meta-Wiki here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_questions_and_answers. I encourage others to add questions or improve the page as they see fit.
Philippe is taking a well-deserved vacation currently following the 2010 fundraiser, but other members of both the Community Department and the Wikimedia Foundation should be able to answer most or all of these questions. If others aren't able to answer some of these questions, the questions can wait until Philippe returns.
However, I believe it's very important that these questions and answers be publicly available as soon as reasonably possible, especially given some of the past explicit statements that said, for example, that IDs are always destroyed. (To be clear, these statements weren't inaccurate at the time, but now are.) Substantive changes such as these should be well-documented and discussed.
MZMcBride
Where were the changes announced, and who announced them?
Nathan wrote:
Where were the changes announced, and who announced them?
An e-mail was sent by an OTRS admin to (at least) otrs-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org and otrs-permissions-l@lists.wikimedia.org on February 1, 2011 announcing these changes. I personally don't see any reason that the author or contents of that announcement e-mail need to be kept private, but I'll leave it up to that individual to make that call.
MZMcBride
These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public, but they weren't announced publicly yet because staff are still in discussion on the OTRS mailing list and wiki with those volunteers about the best way for the new identification process to work. OTRS volunteers and the groups who've had to identify in the past are the ones most affected by this change, so it's prudent to discuss it with them before making any general announcement.
Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative isn't part of my job), I think it was completely inappropriate to prematurely divulge activity in those forums. The people who are being asked to identify are working with staff to reach a consensus on the safest and most agreeable way to go forward. No one can give definitive answers about a process that isn't finalized yet, and it's been conducted in private for the last couple days out of respect for the people whose personal information is potentially involved here.
On Feb 3, 2011 5:28 PM, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Where were the changes announced, and who announced them?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Steven Walling wrote:
These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public...
[...]
Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative isn't part of my job)...
I don't follow. How do you know that these changes were going to be discussed and documented in public? These changes have been discussed for at least some portion of January without any community involvement. When, exactly, was the community going be made aware that these changes were being discussed? When was the community going to be made aware that these changes had been implemented? An announcement has already been made. When was the Community Department going to involve the community (at least to give it a courtesy heads-up)?
No one can give definitive answers about a process that isn't finalized yet, and it's been conducted in private for the last couple days out of respect for the people whose personal information is potentially involved here.
Can you explain this further? You won't discuss an issue that involves the community because of respect for what? What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. If basic questions can't be answered about, for example, data retention after this change has been announced (and to an extent implemented), I don't see how Wikimedia is respecting its volunteers or their private information.
MZMcBride
The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st. I know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public...
[...]
Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative
isn't
part of my job)...
I don't follow. How do you know that these changes were going to be discussed and documented in public? These changes have been discussed for at least some portion of January without any community involvement. When, exactly, was the community going be made aware that these changes were being discussed? When was the community going to be made aware that these changes had been implemented? An announcement has already been made. When was the Community Department going to involve the community (at least to give it a courtesy heads-up)?
No one can give definitive answers about a process that isn't finalized yet, and it's been conducted in private for the last
couple
days out of respect for the people whose personal information is
potentially
involved here.
Can you explain this further? You won't discuss an issue that involves the community because of respect for what? What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. If basic questions can't be answered about, for example, data retention after this change has been announced (and to an extent implemented), I don't see how Wikimedia is respecting its volunteers or their private information.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st. I know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.
at the english otrs list, to be precise
On 3 February 2011 22:27, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st. I know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.
Steven, I recognize you're in a difficult spot here, and so are some other staff members who I know are genuinely working in good faith here. However, thinking that one could send out an instruction like that to hundreds of volunteers throughout all of these different projects, and not having it surface, is just a little bit naive.
Further, there are some serious concerns being expressed in various places, which go all the way down to whether or not the resolution on which the instruction is based actually has the effect that is intended. Simply put, identifying to the WMF does not, in law, make a person accountable, if it cannot be proven that they know what they're accountable for, or to whom they are accountable. Unverified identification provides even less protection. Methods of securing the data have not been addressed fully addressed, nor has the issue of whether this applies to *every* identification made to the WMF as of now, or if it applies only to OTRS agents identifying. We have a pile of people about to run in the steward elections, will it affect them?
I support the notion of individuals with advanced permissions and access to nonpublic information being accountable to the WMF for the use of this information. But sending in an unverified document isn't going to do that, and it never was.
Risker/Anne
Risker,
I'm not arguing here about the merits of the change itself. All I said is that demanding answers about a very sensitive discussion on a private mailing list is inappropriate right now, and that there's no reason to panic, since the standard operating procedure is to make a public announcement about something when a project is ready.
Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 February 2011 22:27, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st.
I
know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.
Steven, I recognize you're in a difficult spot here, and so are some other staff members who I know are genuinely working in good faith here. However, thinking that one could send out an instruction like that to hundreds of volunteers throughout all of these different projects, and not having it surface, is just a little bit naive.
Further, there are some serious concerns being expressed in various places, which go all the way down to whether or not the resolution on which the instruction is based actually has the effect that is intended. Simply put, identifying to the WMF does not, in law, make a person accountable, if it cannot be proven that they know what they're accountable for, or to whom they are accountable. Unverified identification provides even less protection. Methods of securing the data have not been addressed fully addressed, nor has the issue of whether this applies to *every* identification made to the WMF as of now, or if it applies only to OTRS agents identifying. We have a pile of people about to run in the steward elections, will it affect them?
I support the notion of individuals with advanced permissions and access to nonpublic information being accountable to the WMF for the use of this information. But sending in an unverified document isn't going to do that, and it never was.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
----- Original Message ----
From: Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:03:58 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
<snip>
Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment.
I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably and the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems otherwise, it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only bring discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the gossip network. I take issue with the implication that you would not object to someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being spread here.
I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking pains for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite what I would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard things to do; thank you.
The main reason foundation-l is less useful than it could be is because is not because people are *capable* of accusing WMF of wrongdoing in an aggressive tone on an open list. It is because they are *encouraged* to do so by the trend of responses from those connected with WMF. Asking reasonably neutral questions leads to silence or being shut down completely, while accusations of wrongdoing in an aggressive tone provokes snide answers. One of these methods of seeking information on foundation-l turns out to be more effective than the other. Of course, gossiping is most effective of all. But I for one, care enough about the long-term health of the Wikimedia community and it's ability to integrate newcomers as to prefer ignorance.
Birgitte SB
I agree with Brigitte completely.
Phoebe, love you for trying to answer this but I don't completely agree with your assumptions. This seems to be going on more and more recently with the staff. There seems to be a huge communication gap here IMHO. it's not like we can mail a staff person and ask them directly, we already have OTRS for that. ;-) Thanks for giving volunteers the privilege to serve.
Though I am surprised to see a "fellow" defending a staff decision and calling himself a staff person earlier, does that mean the other 5-6-whatever fellows are staff too?
The staff can answer or ignore like Brigitte said or even better, as the "Chief Community officer" said "we really should wait until Philippe gets back..." for answers.
Elizabeth
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:03:58 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
<snip> > > Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an > upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official > announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive > discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment. >
I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably and the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems otherwise, it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only bring discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the gossip network. I take issue with the implication that you would not object to someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being spread here.
I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking pains for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite what I would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard things to do; thank you.
The main reason foundation-l is less useful than it could be is because is not because people are *capable* of accusing WMF of wrongdoing in an aggressive tone on an open list. It is because they are *encouraged* to do so by the trend of responses from those connected with WMF. Asking reasonably neutral questions leads to silence or being shut down completely, while accusations of wrongdoing in an aggressive tone provokes snide answers. One of these methods of seeking information on foundation-l turns out to be more effective than the other. Of course, gossiping is most effective of all. But I for one, care enough about the long-term health of the Wikimedia community and it's ability to integrate newcomers as to prefer ignorance.
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:15 PM, whothis whothith@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Brigitte completely.
Phoebe, love you for trying to answer this but I don't completely agree with your assumptions. This seems to be going on more and more recently with the staff. There seems to be a huge communication gap here IMHO. it's not like we can mail a staff person and ask them directly, we already have OTRS for that. ;-) Thanks for giving volunteers the privilege to serve.
I'm not trying to answer anything... rather, envisioning a perfect world. Call it aspirational.
-- phoebe
On 2/4/2011 11:19 AM, Birgitte SB wrote:
I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking pains for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite what I would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard things to do; thank you.
I agree with much of Birgitte's analysis. I would add that it is not fundamentally wrong to try to surface issues from the gossip network to a more public discussion. (The gossip network is as closed and opaque a forum for discussion as any private mailing list; I'd call for it to be more open, but that would be denying human nature.) Among other things, surfacing these discussions can do the foundation a service by informing it about what matters are being discussed there. However, it does require a great deal of care to surface things in a way that is productive and informative, rather than simply poisoning the public discourse. You can see some of this in how the respectable media approach news that is thrust upon them by tabloids or internet chatter. They go to considerable lengths not to defame and try to avoid unfairly maligning or adding their own insinuations and speculation. I think the pattern of inquiries here has improved, though it could still stand further improvement.
On the foundation side, meanwhile, I believe more work ought to be done to minimize the "need" for the gossip network as an information channel. I've repeatedly pushed for creation of a staff position specifically dedicated to communications with the community. As the current communications staff, Jay and Moka are wonderful but much more external-facing, and have their hands plenty full with just that. I've been expecting that one of the Community department positions outlined in the annual plan would cover this, and if things follow the schedule I would hope to see such a position relatively soon.
--Michael Snow
I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered.
To answer Elizabeth: I am listed on the staff page at wikimediafoundation.org. My fellowship is for a year and I work at the offices here in San Francisco. Fellowships are all different in length and who they work with, and that diversity is intentional, since they're project-based and different projects have different needs.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.comwrote:
On 2/4/2011 11:19 AM, Birgitte SB wrote:
I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they
had
originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his
information
from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often
ignorant
because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking
pains
for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have
noticed a
continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite
what I
would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message,
he is
still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the
issue
altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your
efforts
and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard
things to
do; thank you.
I agree with much of Birgitte's analysis. I would add that it is not fundamentally wrong to try to surface issues from the gossip network to a more public discussion. (The gossip network is as closed and opaque a forum for discussion as any private mailing list; I'd call for it to be more open, but that would be denying human nature.) Among other things, surfacing these discussions can do the foundation a service by informing it about what matters are being discussed there. However, it does require a great deal of care to surface things in a way that is productive and informative, rather than simply poisoning the public discourse. You can see some of this in how the respectable media approach news that is thrust upon them by tabloids or internet chatter. They go to considerable lengths not to defame and try to avoid unfairly maligning or adding their own insinuations and speculation. I think the pattern of inquiries here has improved, though it could still stand further improvement.
On the foundation side, meanwhile, I believe more work ought to be done to minimize the "need" for the gossip network as an information channel. I've repeatedly pushed for creation of a staff position specifically dedicated to communications with the community. As the current communications staff, Jay and Moka are wonderful but much more external-facing, and have their hands plenty full with just that. I've been expecting that one of the Community department positions outlined in the annual plan would cover this, and if things follow the schedule I would hope to see such a position relatively soon.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Steven Walling, I would say your tone might have been a bit abrasive from the beginning but I am assuming good faith.
I absolutely love Michael Snow's take on the situation, I hope that the staff members are reading it too.
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.comwrote:
I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered.
You're mentioning something only staff personnel would/should know here. I would have to assume what role you're speaking as now- staff, OTRS volunteer or a community member.
To answer Elizabeth: I am listed on the staff page at wikimediafoundation.org. My fellowship is for a year and I work at the offices here in San Francisco. Fellowships are all different in length and who they work with, and that diversity is intentional, since they're project-based and different projects have different needs.
There is absolutely no new information in that statement beyond that you're a fellow. I never questioned you my dear.
I only asked for clarification on what roles fellows are playing now, they seem to span from quasi-staff members to advisory board members to full staff members to grant recipient to whatever fellows are actually supposed to be. I was only asking for a little clarification, that's all.
Thanks.
Elizabeth.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@frontier.com
wrote:
On 2/4/2011 11:19 AM, Birgitte SB wrote:
I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though
they
had
originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his
information
from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often
ignorant
because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been
taking
pains
for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have
noticed a
continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that
despite
what I
would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message,
he is
still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the
issue
altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your
efforts
and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard
things to
do; thank you.
I agree with much of Birgitte's analysis. I would add that it is not fundamentally wrong to try to surface issues from the gossip network to a more public discussion. (The gossip network is as closed and opaque a forum for discussion as any private mailing list; I'd call for it to be more open, but that would be denying human nature.) Among other things, surfacing these discussions can do the foundation a service by informing it about what matters are being discussed there. However, it does require a great deal of care to surface things in a way that is productive and informative, rather than simply poisoning the public discourse. You can see some of this in how the respectable media approach news that is thrust upon them by tabloids or internet chatter. They go to considerable lengths not to defame and try to avoid unfairly maligning or adding their own insinuations and speculation. I think the pattern of inquiries here has improved, though it could still stand further improvement.
On the foundation side, meanwhile, I believe more work ought to be done to minimize the "need" for the gossip network as an information channel. I've repeatedly pushed for creation of a staff position specifically dedicated to communications with the community. As the current communications staff, Jay and Moka are wonderful but much more external-facing, and have their hands plenty full with just that. I've been expecting that one of the Community department positions outlined in the annual plan would cover this, and if things follow the schedule I would hope to see such a position relatively soon.
--Michael Snow
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
Steven Walling wrote:
I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered.
From what I've read here and elsewhere, you're about the only person
expressing moral outrage and indignation over these recent decisions being discussed in a public forum. I'm not sure this is particularly surprising given where you've been working the past few months, however, so I don't hold it against you.
Given that this was discussed for weeks and then announced, I don't think waiting for anyone to return from vacation is necessary for a discussion, especially if there's a broader discussion being held about the virtue of the entire identification process. (For anyone who missed it, please read Risker's post in this topic.) This is all to say nothing of the fact that no single person in an organization should be so critical that their absence creates these types of issues.
As I said in my opening post, these questions can wait for Philippe's return if they can't be addressed by others in the meantime, though as you've taken it upon yourself to jump in here, if you have a free minute, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate some real content here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_questions_and_answers
And slightly tangential to the topic at hand, please don't top-post. I'm not sure about others, but I read the public mailing list archives occasionally and it makes a complete mess when people don't post inline (even if Gmail and some other web clients collapse the content neatly).
Further reading: * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Staff_characteristics * https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
MZMcBride
I'm an OTRS admin I've received my first answer to this issue yesterday with a very good email from Philippe and I think it would be useful to post it here if it's ok for him. I've never seen a real discussion.
The main problem, IMHO, is that the new policy is not acceptable for most people in UE because of a different legislation. WMF said that it would be possible proxying the identification process though the local chapters but for example Wikimedia Italia replied that they don't want to participate in this process. We see that WMDE is willing to do this job and we want to investigate if all people, non only German citizens, can be identified by WMDE but it is impossible without a discussion like this.
* If a lot of people employed by the WMF criticize the behaviour of MZMcBride it sounds like that the foundation doesn't want to discuss about this issue and I'm sure this is not the case, so I think it would be appropriate from staffers/fellows/interns/... to clarify if they are speaking of behalf of the foundation or not and possibly state clearly their role. * Someone said that the policy is yet not stabilized and still in discussion, while on OTRS wiki was just moved to the Help namespace, so if we have to wait for Philippe to come back to get responses I would expect also the same from the foundation side.
Riccardo (Abisys)
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Per conto di Steven Walling Inviato: venerdì 4 febbraio 2011 21:50 A: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered.
To answer Elizabeth: I am listed on the staff page at wikimediafoundation.org. My fellowship is for a year and I work at the offices here in San Francisco. Fellowships are all different in length and who they work with, and that diversity is intentional, since they're project-based and different projects have different needs.
----- Original Message ----
From: Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 2:50:11 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered.
Meh. It is not as though he is bringing up some pet issue in which the timing is entirely at his discretion. I would imagine the issue is coming forward at this particular time because of the time-frame chosen someone @ WMF. However mere animosity to his timing would not have prompted me to respond.
My real, huge, jaw-hitting-the-floor, issue with your response is that you preferred "the news about an upcoming change trickl[e] out into the community prior to an official announcement" (gossip) over a posting to foundation-l. You just don't get it.
Micheal Snow suggested gossip is just human nature. Ni modo. But there is a huge difference between stopping it (which I have never suggested doing) and endorsing it as a more valid channel than foundation-l. That gossip could be endorsed to any degree by someone that has a staff position in the "Community" department says a great deal that is not at all positive about the level of understanding and/or leadership in that department.
Gossip destroys trust. Gossip inhibits transparency. Gossip excludes those that are new. Gossip excludes those who socialize differently (in different languages, tolerate different kinds of humor, at different times, etc.) Gossip deteriorates the quality/accuracy of information. Gossip reduces the quantity/detail of information in circulation. Gossip doesn't scale. Every single one of these values should be a significant concern of the "Community" department given the current state of things. [1]
Gossip is inevitable and won't ever be stopped. But people can personally try to become gossip black-holes and/or work to shift the substance of the gossip to the appropriate channel. And WMF staff can certainly encourage the advertising of issues through more valid (i.e. any other) channels. At the very least, they should refrain from opposing the use of more valid channels in place of gossip.
Birgitte SB
[1]To be complete I feel I need add in some values where gossip rated positively. Just to prevent anyone who has never given the issue much thought from jumping ahead from what I have said above to Gossip=Evil.
Gossip an organic component of human communities (No installation required). Gossip is probably the most grossly inexpensive informational network (If you few resources or the information is rather binary making quality losses insignificant). Gossip very efficient at spreading the information that is more passionately cared about faster and wider than information that people care less strongly about (No need to spend time evaluating information for relevancy before distribution). Gossip is better than nothing in short-term considerations. (Temporary communities will rarely find the drawbacks relevant)
Gossip != Evil Gossip can be very good when a crowded theater catches fire. Gossip is simply not an informational network that is compatible with the goals of the Wikimedia movement.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
My real, huge, jaw-hitting-the-floor, issue with your response is that you
preferred "the news about an upcoming change trickl[e] out into the community prior to an official announcement" (gossip) over a posting to foundation-l. You just don't get it.
I do not mean that gossip should be preferred over public announcements as standard operating procedure. Considering that I've made numerous announcements about my work to this very list (IRC office hours, 10th anniversary organizing etc.) I think that's clear.
What I meant is that there is no way to prevent informal discussion about something that has yet to be announced, so there's no reason to fret over it. What I *do *find unhelpful is publicly posting about sensitive topic when you know in advance that people aren't prepared to answer questions about it yet.
2011/2/5 Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
My real, huge, jaw-hitting-the-floor, issue with your response is that you
preferred "the news about an upcoming change trickl[e] out into the community prior to an official announcement" (gossip) over a posting to foundation-l. You just don't get it.
I do not mean that gossip should be preferred over public announcements as standard operating procedure. Considering that I've made numerous announcements about my work to this very list (IRC office hours, 10th anniversary organizing etc.) I think that's clear.
What I meant is that there is no way to prevent informal discussion about something that has yet to be announced, so there's no reason to fret over it. What I *do *find unhelpful is publicly posting about sensitive topic when you know in advance that people aren't prepared to answer questions about it yet.
How about giving up the whole "announcing" thing that seems to become the norm lately and going with "redacting the policy with the community"?
I second fully what Aaron Adrignola said above. I could find no discussion about this on the OTRS wiki, and the otrs-en list is not for every OTRS volunteer. I personally do not feel willing to give up my private data to WMF or any other organisation in the US for that matter, and there is no chapter in my country. It's more than enough that I gave my real name. Imposing this decision without consultation with the whole community, or AT LEAST with all the OTRS volunteers is very poor judgement from the Foundation.
Anyway, was there an event prompting this change or you just thought it was a great idea to get some IDs from the volunteers?
Strainu
On 9 February 2011 19:33, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, was there an event prompting this change or you just thought it was a great idea to get some IDs from the volunteers?
Yes. The previous arrangement was pretty much security theatre. I emailed a scan of my driver's licence - it was genuine (OMG, the Foundation know where I live!), but constructing a plausible fake would have been ridiculously easy for pretty much anyone.
What is the threat model the new arrangement is intended to address? This needs to be explained.
- d.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment.
I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably and the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems otherwise, it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only bring discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the gossip network. I take issue with the implication that you would not object to someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being spread here.
Personally, I can't say that I care much about new OTRS requirements—WMF obviously has all the information it could possibly want from me, and what's apparently being proposed doesn't offend me in the slightest.
I have to say, though, that Birgitte put this very well. Favoring gossip over straight answers doesn't sit well with me, even if it works better for the staff schedule.
And yes, others have been right to point out that while otrs-en-l may be the de facto list for OTRS discussion, it's still limited to the info-en crowd and not really a fair forum for policy decisions.
Speaking only for myself,
Austin
Steven,The Meta page for OTRS was updated to reflect the changes from Feb 1.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering/Header&dif...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering/Header&diff=prev&oldid=2341291 http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering/Header&dif...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering/Header&diff=prev&oldid=2341294People have made numerous mentions of the Identification issue publicly on Meta.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cbrown1023#OTRS_Access
Regards
Theo
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.comwrote:
The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st. I know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public...
[...]
Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative
isn't
part of my job)...
I don't follow. How do you know that these changes were going to be discussed and documented in public? These changes have been discussed for at least some portion of January without any community involvement. When, exactly, was the community going be made aware that these changes were being discussed? When was the community going to be made aware that these
changes
had been implemented? An announcement has already been made. When was the Community Department going to involve the community (at least to give it
a
courtesy heads-up)?
No one can give definitive answers about a process that isn't finalized yet, and it's been conducted in private for the last
couple
days out of respect for the people whose personal information is
potentially
involved here.
Can you explain this further? You won't discuss an issue that involves
the
community because of respect for what? What you're saying makes
absolutely
no sense. If basic questions can't be answered about, for example, data retention after this change has been announced (and to an extent implemented), I don't see how Wikimedia is respecting its volunteers or their private information.
MZMcBride
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
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public...
[...]
Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative isn't part of my job)...
I don't follow. How do you know that these changes were going to be discussed and documented in public? These changes have been discussed for at least some portion of January without any community involvement. When, exactly, was the community going be made aware that these changes were being discussed? When was the community going to be made aware that these changes had been implemented? An announcement has already been made. When was the Community Department going to involve the community (at least to give it a courtesy heads-up)?
I will note, as a member of both of these lists, that you did not actually ask these questions - at least not publicly, that I could find - before sending a note to foundation-l. Probably doing so would have been helpful :)
It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what would be announced. The original announcement did affect only a limited number of volunteers, and there was no implication that it would be extended to admins, etc. Of course, broader discussion of the issue of identification and access to non-private data (and who should have it) in general is great, and if people have thoughts they should weigh in.
For those not on the OTRS list, it's a list that is used (unsurprisingly) for coordinating OTRS -- things like "there's a new template for common question XYZ". It is and has always been a closed list, because access to OTRS is closed and some things are sensitive ("hey, did can we merge all the mails from this person?") It is typically pretty unexciting -- this is the longest discussion I think I've ever seen on it in my 5+ years of being subscribed :)
-- phoebe
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public...
[...]
Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative isn't part of my job)...
I don't follow. How do you know that these changes were going to be discussed and documented in public? These changes have been discussed for at least some portion of January without any community involvement. When, exactly, was the community going be made aware that these changes were being discussed? When was the community going to be made aware that these changes had been implemented? An announcement has already been made. When was the Community Department going to involve the community (at least to give it a courtesy heads-up)?
I will note, as a member of both of these lists, that you did not actually ask these questions - at least not publicly, that I could find - before sending a note to foundation-l. Probably doing so would have been helpful :)
It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what would be announced. The original announcement did affect only a limited number of volunteers, and there was no implication that it would be extended to admins, etc. Of course, broader discussion of the issue of identification and access to non-private data (and who should have it) in general is great, and if people have thoughts they should weigh in.
er, private data :) Of course if you want to discuss non-private data too, go for it!
phoebe
Why is it such a transgression to bring the discussion to foundation-l? The change was discussed on meta, announced on the otrs lists, etc... I'm not clear on what was left to decide in the discussion on OTRS, or why that discussion couldn't happen on a list with broader participation. The Foundation's position on identification affects not only OTRS volunteers, but also stewards, checkusers and ombuds committee members, among others, and anyone who is considering volunteering for those roles.
phoebe ayers wrote:
It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what would be announced.
In my discussions with people about these recent decisions, some people have tried to pivot the conversation with statements such as "but Wikimedia is allowed to do this" and "the non-public data access policy is determined by staff." I don't disagree.
My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain volunteers need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a lot of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue, it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least why there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it intentional? Was it simply an oversight?
Nobody is saying anyone was outside their remit to implement these changes (and to an extent, these changes are sensible, in as much as they make the pointless procedure a little less pointless), but the Community Department doesn't seem particularly keen on involving (or even notifying) the community. That's the larger issue, as I see it.
Some of the comments in this thread have read like "oh, but we were going to announce this as soon as we had decided everything privately." That doesn't seem to fit in with Wikimedia's governance model and more often than not, it leads to situations where the announced implementation of decisions like these have to be re-worked and re-released because adequate discussion and thought weren't given the first time. Again, the discussion on the OTRS mailing list is pretty clear evidence of this.
The original announcement did affect only a limited number of volunteers, and there was no implication that it would be extended to admins, etc. Of course, broader discussion of the issue of identification and access to non-private data (and who should have it) in general is great, and if people have thoughts they should weigh in.
People do have thoughts and have tried to weigh in, but they're being chastised for doing so on this list (not by you, to be clear). I don't see how it's fair to contributors to encourage discussion and debate in some posts while condemning open discussion and debate in other posts (referring here primarily to Steven's posts).
MZMcBride
Wait, so the policy change is about to be implemented, the discussion on private list has been going on for a while.
Some peoples already submitted their IDs and the deadline for ID submission is in a few weeks...and asking about it here is being called presumptuous.
How is it a "good-faith interpretation" for not announcing the changes since they've already started implementing it ? they even decided on a deadline already. I don't follow.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:29 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
phoebe ayers wrote:
It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what would be announced.
In my discussions with people about these recent decisions, some people have tried to pivot the conversation with statements such as "but Wikimedia is allowed to do this" and "the non-public data access policy is determined by staff." I don't disagree.
My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain volunteers need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a lot of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue, it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least why there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it intentional? Was it simply an oversight?
Nobody is saying anyone was outside their remit to implement these changes (and to an extent, these changes are sensible, in as much as they make the pointless procedure a little less pointless), but the Community Department doesn't seem particularly keen on involving (or even notifying) the community. That's the larger issue, as I see it.
Some of the comments in this thread have read like "oh, but we were going to announce this as soon as we had decided everything privately." That doesn't seem to fit in with Wikimedia's governance model and more often than not, it leads to situations where the announced implementation of decisions like these have to be re-worked and re-released because adequate discussion and thought weren't given the first time. Again, the discussion on the OTRS mailing list is pretty clear evidence of this.
The original announcement did affect only a limited number of volunteers,
and
there was no implication that it would be extended to admins, etc. Of
course,
broader discussion of the issue of identification and access to
non-private
data (and who should have it) in general is great, and if people have
thoughts
they should weigh in.
People do have thoughts and have tried to weigh in, but they're being chastised for doing so on this list (not by you, to be clear). I don't see how it's fair to contributors to encourage discussion and debate in some posts while condemning open discussion and debate in other posts (referring here primarily to Steven's posts).
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
phoebe ayers wrote:
It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what would be announced.
In my discussions with people about these recent decisions, some people have tried to pivot the conversation with statements such as "but Wikimedia is allowed to do this" and "the non-public data access policy is determined by staff." I don't disagree.
My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain volunteers need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a lot of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS mailing list.)
Fair enough! In a general context -- not related to this specific issue -- I would love to see some better best practices for how to conduct these kinds of discussions in a fair and appropriate way. Some general principles that I wish everyone would keep in mind all the time:
1. everyone should assume good faith of everyone else. It doesn't help on that front when messages are accusative or otherwise bite-y. Remember that we're all newbies in some situations; everyone has stuff to bring to the table and everyone (in my experience) tries really hard to do the right thing. We are all (staff and volunteers) "Wikimedia community members".
2. the staff does many things that the community is not aware of, and has concerns and policies to follow that are not always widely known; they may also have certain areas of expertise that are not widely known.
3. the community does many things the staff is not aware of, and has concerns and policies to follow that are not always widely known; they may also have certain areas of expertise that are not widely known.
4. not all community members are in "the same place"; e.g. not all the stewards read the OTRS list, we all know that not everyone reads foundation-l, etc. People who have similar concerns may be in widely dispersed areas, not to mention the language-barrier issue.
5. as a corollary to 2, 3 & 4, it is probably best to have an open discussion about issues that affect work that is done both by community members and staff members.
6. as we have seen in all discussions since time immemorial, when you have a big group of people discussing an issue some people have expertise and points of view that they can add to the discussion that are novel and useful (e.g. the community member who spoke up about this on the OTRS list who is a security expert IRL); and some people don't. There will also always be people who don't read the discussion or have another ax to grind. It is also generally difficult to determine consensus in this situation if there are many competing ideas.
7. because of 4 and 6, there is a challenge in making big discussions inclusive, productive and non-whiny, and in drawing conclusions from them. It is however possible, and has been done before.
8. principle 7 is further complicated by the fact that sometimes there are other mandates that affect the situation, e.g. from the board or from "on high" (sorry, we can't change tax law). Most of the time, however, this is not the case; we have a very wide latitude in determining the best course of action to take in how to successfully run the projects and foundation, which actually makes things harder a lot of the time. We run the show, but we have to figure out how to do it.
9. we are doing something that is complicated, novel, and unlike any other situation -- a community running what is now the 5th largest website in the world. People will and have made mistakes. Many best practices from other situations, like businesses hiring employees, are not applicable. However, we do have an internal body of best practices that have been honed over time (like not voting and open discussions) that actually prove useful much of the time.
10. Wikimedians love to give their 0.02 {local currency here} and tend to get seriously annoyed when they don't get the chance to do so.
Now, how do we take this situation and have a productive conversation that results in, for instance, the best damn strategy for volunteers accessing private data that the world has ever seen?
-- phoebe, speaking as a community member only
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:59 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain volunteers need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a lot of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue, it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least why there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it intentional? Was it simply an oversight?
I've had off-hand conversations with many fellow agents over the past couple years that were glancing discussions about the privacy policy and OTRS. Many were concerned about applying because of their transparency in ID not to the WMF, but other volunteers. Trust is a valuable thing and it is very hard to build in an online medium. As a subscriber to both otrs-en-l and otrs-admins-l, I can assure you and the community that there was no closed door conversation with a dozen people on a private mailing list responsible. It's the WMF's call, and one that I happen to support.
Hi everyone,
Yes, there are some changes happening. We announced it to the OTRS volunteers as they are the first to be directly impacted by this change. Part of being an OTRS volunteer is the agreement that they would be willing to provide identification to the Foundation if requested. I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says that those with access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation, OTRS volunteers have served with the understanding that they agree to ID if asked, we're now asking them to do so. We are working with the OTRS volunteers to find the safest way to do so, that will comply with the Board but will also provide safety and security to the community.
-Christine and the vacationing Philippe
--------- Christine Moellenberndt Community Associate Wikimedia Foundation
christine@wikimedia.org
On 2/3/11 5:20 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
Hi.
This doesn't seem to have hit this list yet, so I'm posting here for general information and discussion.
Effective February 1, 2011, there are two substantive changes to the policies and procedures surrounding identifying to the Wikimedia Foundation.
The first change is that OTRS agents will now be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation. The second change is that the submitted information will now be retained, when it was previously destroyed.
This raises a number of questions:
- Who made these decisions?
- Why were these decisions made?
- Who was consulted about these decisions?
- Was potential impact to OTRS or other volunteer groups measured before
these decisions were made? (This is particularly important given that (a) the collected information is not verified, raising questions about the virtue of this entire process; and (b) certain volunteers have already stated they will no longer volunteer in a particular capacity due to these changes.)
- Will these decisions extend beyond OTRS agents?
- As identification is primarily a legal issue, was legal counsel sought?
(And if legal counsel was sought, who was involved, given the lack of a General Counsel currently?)
- What will the data retention policies be for the collected information?
- What will the data destruction policies be for the collected information?
- Under what circumstances can this collected information be released? Does
this information fall under the standard Wikimedia privacy policy?
- Who has access to the submitted information (both in theory and in
practice)?
Looking at this more broadly:
- What's the virtue of identification?
- Is there a reasonable rationale or justification for it, given that the
identities are not verified?
- Can the submitted information be verified?
- Should the submitted information be verified?
In the interest of transparency, I should note that I've been involved in at least two discussions about identification on the English Wikipedia:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identification
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_accountability
I believe these issues are of interest to both the Wikimedia community and the outside community. As such, I've posted these questions to Meta-Wiki here:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_questions_and_answers. I encourage others to add questions or improve the page as they see fit.
Philippe is taking a well-deserved vacation currently following the 2010 fundraiser, but other members of both the Community Department and the Wikimedia Foundation should be able to answer most or all of these questions. If others aren't able to answer some of these questions, the questions can wait until Philippe returns.
However, I believe it's very important that these questions and answers be publicly available as soon as reasonably possible, especially given some of the past explicit statements that said, for example, that IDs are always destroyed. (To be clear, these statements weren't inaccurate at the time, but now are.) Substantive changes such as these should be well-documented and discussed.
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Christine Moellenberndt cmoellenberndt@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
Yes, there are some changes happening. We announced it to the OTRS volunteers as they are the first to be directly impacted by this change. Part of being an OTRS volunteer is the agreement that they would be willing to provide identification to the Foundation if requested. I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says that those with access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation, OTRS volunteers have served with the understanding that they agree to ID if asked, we're now asking them to do so. We are working with the OTRS volunteers to find the safest way to do so, that will comply with the Board but will also provide safety and security to the community.
-Christine and the vacationing Philippe
Christine Moellenberndt Community Associate Wikimedia Foundation
christine@wikimedia.org
My issue is that I've already identified, verified, ok'd, and it seems, that's not nough anymore, now WMF wants to keep a permanent record of who am I, with the possible implications of it.
Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says that those with access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation...
Will local administrators be next? Surely they have access to deleted content, which is non-public data.
We are working with the OTRS volunteers to find the safest way to do so, that will comply with the Board but will also provide safety and security to the community.
How does collecting unverified personal information provide safety and security to the community?
MZMcBride
Max,
Thanks for raising all these good and important questions. I think that we really should wait until Philippe gets back. He is leading this. The couple of other staffers capable of dealing with these questions are busy with other work. And anyways, it would be better not to have the discussion without Philippe.
Zack
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:16 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says that those with access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation...
Will local administrators be next? Surely they have access to deleted content, which is non-public data.
We are working with the OTRS volunteers to find the safest way to do so,
that
will comply with the Board but will also provide safety and security to
the
community.
How does collecting unverified personal information provide safety and security to the community?
MZMcBride
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ok Max But you say that all volunteers need to give ID before 2011/03/02. Is also this term suspended because we have a lot of work and discussions to do?
Riccardo (Abisys)
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Per conto di Zack Exley Inviato: venerdì 4 febbraio 2011 17:41 A: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
Max,
Thanks for raising all these good and important questions. I think that we really should wait until Philippe gets back. He is leading this. The couple of other staffers capable of dealing with these questions are busy with other work. And anyways, it would be better not to have the discussion without Philippe.
Zack
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Riccardo Burdisso riccardo@abisys.itwrote:
Ok Max But you say that all volunteers need to give ID before 2011/03/02. Is also this term suspended because we have a lot of work and discussions to do?
If it's necessary, I'm sure Philippe will be flexible with any deadlines when he is back.
Riccardo (Abisys)
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Per conto di Zack Exley Inviato: venerdì 4 febbraio 2011 17:41 A: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
Max,
Thanks for raising all these good and important questions. I think that we really should wait until Philippe gets back. He is leading this. The couple of other staffers capable of dealing with these questions are busy with other work. And anyways, it would be better not to have the discussion without Philippe.
Zack
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2011/2/4 MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com:
Hi.
This doesn't seem to have hit this list yet, so I'm posting here for general information and discussion.
Effective February 1, 2011, there are two substantive changes to the policies and procedures surrounding identifying to the Wikimedia Foundation.
As a Commons user seeing every day the limits and the potential harm there is in using any picture-authorizing E-mail system, I think that the opinion of Commons users should be taken into account before making any significant policy change affecting Commons.
Sometimes I think the pictures currently tagged with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:OTRS cannot realistically be reused by reusers (because the reusers are not allowed to see the terms of the permission (1) and to know the identity of the E-mail sender). This absence of conditions where the pictures are realistically reusable by anybody apart from the Wikimedia Foundation itself (which can read the E-mails) make these pictures objectively unfree (even if from a legal perspective they are licensed under a free license), not belonging to the kind of free works mentioned on http://freedomdefined.org/Definition . The reusers must be in a position to check by themselves that the work is free. I.E. know the phone number of the person who reportedly issued the license and phone there to check that it is true.
With the OTRS picture permission system, we are reinventing something that is hardly different for the non-Wikimedia reusers than the "Wikipedia only" permissions that had been banned by Jimbo Wales in May 2005 (2).
If the foundation wants to identify more carefully its volunteers, it could means that it is gearing up to retaliate against any volunteer who would make a mistake. This in turn affects my relations as a Wikimedia Commons user with the volunteers with the prospect that if I ask a volunteer to do something difficult and if, for some reason, he makes a mistake, he will be harmed when the Wikimedia Foundation retaliates against him. In turn I should try less to rely on these volunteers out of fear that they might be harmed.
The OTRS volunteers are left on their own in such a perilous situation that concretely it is better not to involve them. So in fact they are not as useful as you might think.
I think we should go back to the community self-reliance motto expressed by Jimbo Wales in his New Statesman interview (3). And try to do most of the communication between uploaders and the Commons community on the wiki talk pages rather than on a Foundation-owned private E-mail system nobody can read. The wiki being public is a protection. If someone says something bad on a wiki, there are at least witnesses, and people who can show support. The wiki being public makes talks written on it available to non-Wikimedia reusers, enabling them to make their own decision on whether the file is really free, and licensed by a person who has enough authority to do so.
(1) While the licensing terms are often clear, the extent of the permission (number of pictures, a whole website or not, whether the permission applies to pictures made available in the future, what happens if a discrepancy occurs in the future - not to say at present! - between the agreed terms and the mentioned website's terms of use) is not always so clear. The quality of the person (the boss of the company or corporation, or a person with a low rank in the hierarchy, a technical webmaster not usually having authority to engage the company's assets, or even a volunteer not hired as a salaryman by the licencing party, as was one envisaged hypothesis when dealing with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) is never clear. (2) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html (3) "thinking about community participation and involvement, a spirit of volunteerism, a spirit of helping out, a spirit of self-reliance" http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/jimmy-wales-wikipedia...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org