[Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

[Foundation-l] Umberto Eco's...

[Foundation-l] Privacy policy

emijrp

3 Aug 2010 3 Aug '10

4:13 a.m.

Hi all; Some days ago I was contacted in my user talk in Spanish Wikipedia about a request for deletion in German Wikipedia.[1] An user opened a request for deletion[2] for an user edits ranking[3] which my bot updates regularly in German Wikipedia (also in many more projects[4][5]). Finally, the German version of this ranking it was deleted some days ago. I don't speak German, but, using a translator, I can understand that the reason for the deletion was that German Wikipedia has got a "local privacy policy" whichs avoid generating statistics of users which are not listed in an opt-in page.[6] The number of edits is a public number. For example, you can know my number of edits in German Wikipedia, looking at[7][8], and the "official" top users in[9]. So, what is the problem? data privacy or that this list was saved in German Wikipedia? Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you can see: User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users edited and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users. The privacy policy is clear. Your number of edits is public. And it can be published in aggregated forms by other uses. And if you edit Wikipedia, you accept the Privacy Policy. Also, on the top of the Privacy Policy page you can read: The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. But now, German Wikipedia has an "official local privacy policy" which is opposed to that. Finally, I would like to know what is the position of the Wikimedia Foundation on this. I think that it is an important question, for users, for researchers and for curious people. Thanks, emijrp [1] http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario_Discusi%C3%B3n:Emijrp&… [2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/24._Juli_2010#B… [3] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Emijrp/List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_… [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/List_of_Wikimedians_by_number_of… [5] Look at the interwikis: http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Emijrp/List_of_Wikipedians_by_number… [6] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beitragszahlen/Opt-In [7] http://de.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=users&ususers=E… [8] http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Emijrp [9] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm#wikipedians [10] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy

Show replies by thread

Andre Engels

3 Aug 3 Aug

4:25 a.m.

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you can see: User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users edited and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users. The privacy policy is clear. Your number of edits is public. And it can be published in aggregated forms by other uses. And if you edit Wikipedia, you accept the Privacy Policy. Also, on the top of the Privacy Policy page you can read: The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. But now, German Wikipedia has an "official local privacy policy" which is opposed to that.

No. The privacy policy tells which information, and under which circumstances *may* be divulged. It is not against the policy to provide less information than that, only to provide more information. At least, that is how I always read the privacy policy. -- André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com

emijrp

4:56 a.m.

2010/8/3 Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com>

...

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

edited

and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users. The privacy policy is clear. Your number of edits is public. And it can

published in aggregated forms by other uses. And if you edit Wikipedia,

you

accept the Privacy Policy. Also, on the top of the Privacy Policy page

you

can read: The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented,

eroded,

or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. But now, German Wikipedia has an "official local privacy policy" which is opposed to that.

No. The privacy policy tells which information, and under which circumstances *may* be divulged.

And it says that the number of edits is public.

...

It is not against the policy to provide less information than that, only to provide more information.

But it is against the policy to write a new policy which converts the number of edits in a private data, until the user gives permission to be used and published in statistics.

...

At least, that is how I always read the privacy policy. -- André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

James Alexander

5:04 a.m.

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:56 AM, emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2010/8/3 Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you

can

see: User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users

edited

published in aggregated forms by other uses. And if you edit Wikipedia,

you

accept the Privacy Policy. Also, on the top of the Privacy Policy page

you > can read: > > The content of this page is an official policy approved by the

Wikimedia

Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented,

eroded, > or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. > > But now, German Wikipedia has an "official local privacy policy" which

opposed to that.

No. The privacy policy tells which information, and under which circumstances *may* be divulged.

And it says that the number of edits is public.

It is not against the policy to provide less information than that, only

provide more information.

But it is against the policy to write a new policy which converts the number of edits in a private data, until the user gives permission to be used and published in statistics.

At least, that is how I always read the privacy policy. -- André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com

While I disagree with the policy I'm not sure we can say that they aren't allowed to make it. I think a more restrictive policy would be allowed just not less restrictive. That being said I'm not totally sure that basic info like edit counts should be disallowed since most of them are given by the software itself (and still is) not to mention the toolserver. Perhaps more complex things (which are currently disallowed by the toolserver without opt-in for example). I know for example that X!s tool is required to get opt in to show broken down stats like per month/time of day/graphs. James Alexander james.alexander(a)rochester.edu jamesofur(a)gmail.com

Sebastian Moleski

5:54 a.m.

Hi all, to give a little insight here: about two years ago the German Wikipedia community reached consensus that, for the page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BZ (which is basically user statistics and ranking), an opt-in is required. That means only those users may be listed there who have added their name to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beitragszahlen/Opt-In. The reasoning behind this approach is simple: just because a piece of personal data is public, the aggregation of such data isn't automatically also public. Why is that so? Because such aggregations can provide insights into editing habits and other behavior of the person behind that user account which touches on their privacy. A similar analogy is: just because cookies exist and are public information from a website's perspective doesn't make it acceptable to generate viewing profiles and analyzing browsing patterns because that inforation touches the user's privacy. Why did the German community decide this? Germans have traditionally (at least since 1983) been particularly conscientious about personal privacy. The constitutional court here even claimed a basic right to control how one's personal data is used by others, regardless of whether that data is made public or not at some point in time. Retrieving, storing, using, aggregating, and publishing personal data is regulated by fairly strict laws that typically require compelling reasons for such activities before they are allowed - or the person's explicit permission. Some of these principles have also been codified at the European Union level under the subject of "data protection" so this isn't a strictly German approach (anymore). Hope that helps, Sebastian

Robert Rohde

6:37 a.m.

Personally, I don't see any intrinsic problem with different wiki communities having different policies about what kinds of auxiliary content they will accept (as long as it doesn't interfere with the basic mission of the project). I will say though that trying to control the ways that already public data might be aggregated is pretty unexpected from my American viewpoint. It is also seems pretty clear that aggregation of edit statistics is perfectly acceptable within the larger WMF Privacy Policy. Hence, I think the German Wikipedia community would find it nearly impossible to enforce their position on privacy with respect to the actions of most external third parties. It even seems likely to me that if the same information appeared on EN or Meta, that they would have trouble finding a consensus for deletion within those communities. So, if the Germans wish to have a more restrictive privacy policy governing their own content, then that seems fine, but I suspect they would have a difficult uphill battle to extend that decision beyond their own immediate sphere of influence. -Robert Rohde

Domas Mituzas

7:47 a.m.

Hi!

...

The privacy policy is clear. Your number of edits is public. And it can be published in aggregated forms by other uses. And if you edit Wikipedia, you accept the Privacy Policy. Also, on the top of the Privacy Policy page you can read:

Foundation privacy policy is what kind of information foundation releases. In this case foundation has already released the data, and publishing it may or may not be the scope of project, but it is not 'privacy policy' anymore, but inclusion policy. The very same information can be hosted at many other places, including google spreadsheets or any random paste bin. Domas

Mike.lifeguard

7:59 a.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, James Alexander wrote:

...

That being said I'm not totally sure that basic info like edit counts should be disallowed since most of them are given by the software itself (and still is) not to mention the toolserver. Perhaps more complex things (which are currently disallowed by the toolserver without opt-in for example). I know for example that X!s tool is required to get opt in to show broken down stats like per month/time of day/graphs.

Keep in mind that the Toolserver is bound by German privacy laws, which are very strong. - -Mike

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkxX9oUACgkQst0AR/DaKHtwjgCeJVkzyfD1fJCCQ2F7h1j15P4O SZEAn3bTAudmg60Xk4wMwo8PM2xck4Ti =p4SZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Pedro Sanchez

12:25 p.m.

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Sebastian Moleski <info(a)sebmol.me> wrote:

...

Hi all, to give a little insight here: about two years ago the German Wikipedia community reached consensus that, for the page (...) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

If I understand correctly emijrp here's the issue. 1) There's a global policy on data 2) German wikipedia have a more strict interpretation 3) Emijrp claims his page on spanish wikipedia doesn't break the global policy (or any eswiki policy) 4) And while it's not allowed on dewiki (by a local policy, therefore getting deleted) local policies of a wikipedia are, by definition of local, only applied on that wiki. User is not complaining that page violates global policy, only local one. And emijrp points that global policy considers editcount as public. Now people say "yes, but dewiki has a more strict policy", but again this is not abotu dewiki (correctly) being able to have stronger local policies. This is similar to the issue a few weeks ago where a wiki decided to enact a policy banning some images. It's a local policy, being applied on that wiki. But noone expects such a stronger image policy to be a valid reason for deletion on other wikis.

Pedro Sanchez

12:26 p.m.

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I will say though that trying to control the ways that already public data might be aggregated is pretty unexpected from my American viewpoint. It is also seems pretty clear that aggregation of edit statistics is perfectly acceptable within the larger WMF Privacy Policy. Hence, I think the German Wikipedia community would find it nearly impossible to enforce their position on privacy with respect to the actions of most external third parties. It even seems likely to me that if the same information appeared on EN or Meta, that they would have trouble finding a consensus for deletion within those communities. So, if the Germans wish to have a more restrictive privacy policy governing their own content, then that seems fine, but I suspect they would have a difficult uphill battle to extend that decision beyond their own immediate sphere of influence. -Robert Rohde

That was basicaly my point I think you express it much more clearly.

Thomas Dalton

12:37 p.m.

On 3 August 2010 09:04, James Alexander <jamesofur(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

While I disagree with the policy I'm not sure we can say that they aren't allowed to make it. I think a more restrictive policy would be allowed just not less restrictive.

That's pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The German Wikipedia is entitled to create whatever policies it likes as long as they don't go against global policy (and being more restrictive isn't against the global privacy policy) or against the fundamental principles of the movement. I think this policy is ridiculous (Sebastian's analogy to cookies is very unconvincing - the contributions page is already public, the analogy could be used to argue to the removal of all attribution, but if edits are going to be attributed (and, of course, they are) then the information is going to be public and making a rule that says only people with the time and technical expertise to write their own contributions analysis script are allowed access to contribution statistics doesn't make any sense to me at all), but it's not up to me.

Sebastian Moleski

12:53 p.m.

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

That's not quite what the rule tries to accomplish. Rather, the point is this: personal data being public does not allow anyone to aggregate such data in a way such that the result is still tied to individual people (also called 'profiling'). Why is that so? Because according to this German point of view, people have the right to control what their personal data is being used for. Since, when setting up an account on MediaWiki, there's no explicit statement saying that your editing data may be aggregated in such a manner, MediaWiki users didn't give permission to such aggregation and therefore such aggregation may not take place. Therefore, such aggregation without opt-in can't be published on German Wikipedia or on the Toolserver (which is run by Wikimedia Deutschland and therefore subject to German law). I understand that this position may seem odd to a lot of people, especially if they come from the US or UK. I'm just stating a perception that is very common here. By the way, neither the original poster nor the discussion on German Wikipedia implied that this point of view has to be applied to other wikis like Meta or Spanish Wikipedia. Best regards, Sebastian

Marcus Buck

1:58 p.m.

An'n 03.08.2010 09:13, hett emijrp schreven:

...

User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users edited and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users.

Perhaps you could compare it to this situation: It's not illegal to look at a house from a public place. It's not illegal to use binoculars in a public place. It's not illegal to take photos in a public place. It's not illegal to follow a person. It's not illegal to look into someone's trash can. It's not illegal to enter someone's childrens' school. But if you do this all day long to a single person, you are a stalker and legal action may be taken against you. Just because collecting public data is legal doesn't mean that aggregating it is legal. And German law is less lax with privacy than other laws. Marcus Buck User:Slomox

Marcus Buck

2:05 p.m.

An'n 03.08.2010 18:58, hett Marcus Buck schreven:

...

An'n 03.08.2010 09:13, hett emijrp schreven:

Just to be clear, with this comparison I am referring to the first aggregation tool that created a analysis of edits over daytime and other statistics. That was the reason for the policy in the first place. I don't think that emijrp's tool violates German privacy law, but it violates the policy. Marcus Buck User:Slomox

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

3:15 p.m.

Sebastian Moleski wrote:

...

That isn't odd to me. Where does anyone sign to give permission for their editing history to be aggregated and scrapped? There is no such permission granted, and as many are under 18 they do not have the legal capacity to enter into such agreements anyway.

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

3:33 p.m.

Robert Rohde wrote:

...

Currently the data collection and processing doesn't follow its recommended code of good practice of the UKs DPA and may even be in breach of it: http://www.ico.gov.uk/ebook/ebook.htm One wonders what the response would be if a UK ISP published a list of all its users site visits.

Thomas Dalton

3:58 p.m.

On 3 August 2010 19:33, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

...

Currently the data collection and processing doesn't follow its recommended code of good practice of the UKs DPA and may even be in breach of it: http://www.ico.gov.uk/ebook/ebook.htm

That's quite a long document. You could point out the specific bits being violated?

...

One wonders what the response would be if a UK ISP published a list of all its users site visits.

That's completely different. Everyone knows (or can be reasonably expected to know, anyway) that when they edit a page their username or IP address, the time and date and what they edited will be stored and made publicly available. We're just talking about making that publicly available information available in a different way. I'm pretty sure the UK's privacy laws don't forbid that, although I don't doubt what people have said about German law.

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

4:28 p.m.

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

On 3 August 2010 19:33, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Currently the data collection and processing doesn't follow its recommended code of good practice of the UKs DPA and may even be in breach of it: http://www.ico.gov.uk/ebook/ebook.htm

That's quite a long document. You could point out the specific bits being violated?

Probably most of it. P26 to start with. Page12 retention, p13 security of data, p14-16. All of section 5, ...

...

One wonders what the response would be if a UK ISP published a list of all its users site visits.

The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make public statements about a user.

Domas Mituzas

4:48 p.m.

...

The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make public statements about a user.

we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with pseudonym. otoh, whatever people talk here about aggregation seems to be uneducated blabber by people who don't know Special:Contributions exists (that also groups/aggregates data by user). Domas

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

5:04 p.m.

Domas Mituzas wrote:

...

The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make public statements about a user.

we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with pseudonym.

And? People use the same pseudonym on more than one site just as they use the same password on more than one site. Besides some people even enter their real name.

...

otoh, whatever people talk here about aggregation seems to be uneducated blabber by people who don't know Special:Contributions exists (that also groups/aggregates data by user).

That there are multiple publications of processed user data does not excuse the aggregation is simply makes it all the worse.

Risker

5:12 p.m.

On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make public statements about a user.

Precisely my thought. I cannot speak for other projects, but the account creation page on English Wikipedia includes some privacy warnings and links directly to the WMF privacy policy, as does every single page on the project. By creating an account, one implicitly accepts the terms of the privacy policy, including the potential for aggregation of edits. Risker

masti

5:38 p.m.

On 08/03/2010 10:04 PM, wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

...

Domas Mituzas wrote:

The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make public statements about a user.

we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with pseudonym.

And? People use the same pseudonym on more than one site just as they use the same password on more than one site. Besides some people even enter their real name.

this is their problem not ours. How do you know this is their real name? Anything that looks like a name can be as "nicky" as any random list of letters masti

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

5:38 p.m.

Risker wrote:

...

On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote:

The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make public statements about a user.

People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well have a static IP address. Besides simply writing down that data is aggregated does not make it right. If its violation of personal data right for Germans why should it be any less of a violation for Spaniards, French, Americans, British, or the Chinese? Don't the German pages also have links to privacy statements?

masti

5:40 p.m.

On 08/03/2010 10:38 PM, wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

...

Risker wrote: > On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas<midom.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

because other countries laws do not mark IP as personal data? Same as cars licence plates. Some people drive car with same licence plates for years. And so what? masti

Risker

5:44 p.m.

On 3 August 2010 16:38, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

...

Risker wrote:

On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an >> individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make >> public statements about a user. > > we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with

pseudonym.

otoh, whatever people talk here about aggregation seems to be uneducated blabber by people who don't know Special:Contributions exists (that also groups/aggregates data by user).

Precisely my thought. I cannot speak for other projects, but the account creation page on English Wikipedia includes some privacy warnings and

links

directly to the WMF privacy policy, as does every single page on the project. By creating an account, one implicitly accepts the terms of the privacy policy, including the potential for aggregation of edits.

Perhaps the point here is that it is not illegal in the place where the servers are housed, or where the WMF exists. I do find it kind of curious to see such a hostile response to the long-time, well-known privacy policy for a group of projects devoted to education, research and openness of information, particularly one where each editor is personally and directly responsible for each edit s/he makes. Publishing one's words on WMF projects is a *public* act, something that is made clear with every time someone opens an "edit" tab. (If it isn't on the projects you work on, then it ought to be.) Risker

Ray Saintonge

6:04 p.m.

wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

...

Domas Mituzas wrote:

The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make public statements about a user.

we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with pseudonym.

And? People use the same pseudonym on more than one site just as they use the same password on more than one site. Besides some people even enter their real name.

Using a pseudonym or a real name is always an option available to everyone. In the past, cases where someone outed another who chose to use a pseudonym have had severe consequences. There has also always been strong opposition to any proposal that users must sign up with real names. Really wanting to maintain anonymity and privacy requires a measure of personal responsibility. You absolutely should not expect the nanny state to come to your rescue every time you fuck up. Ray

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

6:05 p.m.

masti wrote:

...

On 08/03/2010 10:04 PM, wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

Domas Mituzas wrote:

The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make public statements about a user.

we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with pseudonym.

And? People use the same pseudonym on more than one site just as they use the same password on more than one site. Besides some people even enter their real name.

this is their problem not ours. How do you know this is their real name? Anything that looks like a name can be as "nicky" as any random list of letters

So if they are stupid or not sophisticated enough to hide behind anonymity then tough we'll exploit their personal data. Any thing they give away is fair game. Sound like the justification of hackers and phishers. No ethics here then.

Domas Mituzas

6:24 p.m.

Hi, wiki-list!

...

No ethics here then.

Excuse me, what is your complaint? I don't really get the point you are trying to make. There are few simple things, but apparently you have problems to grasp them :) 1. Your readership data is not revealed to third parties. Your point "if a UK ISP published a list of all its users site visits." is complete bullshit and does not apply at all in this discussion. 2. As an editor, you are participating in a collaborative process, which has quite a lot of meritocracy, so your contribution to the project matters. The crap you are suggesting is "let's make every contribution fully anonymous so nobody would be able to track anything". I'm not sure your suggestion would work well in Wikipedias. 3. Pseudonyms are not associated with individuals, unless those individuals want those pseudonyms to be associated with them. 4. Editors are exposed to edit trails all the time, via RecentChanges, Special:Contributors, Watchlists, article histories, etc. Such information _is_ public. 5. Germans are more sensitive to privacy issues, and they have probably strictest privacy laws in the world. OTOH, look at (2). 6. You seem to demand banning underage editing, which is quite important Wikipedian demographic :) 7. We have ethics of open collaborative project that is providing knowledge to the world. This is not tinfoil hat association. GTFO, if you want to imply that we don't have ethics here, just because it doesn't fit your paranoid POV. Domas

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

6:26 p.m.

Risker wrote:

...

On 3 August 2010 16:38, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Perhaps the point here is that it is not illegal in the place where the servers are housed, or where the WMF exists.

Just because something isn't illegal on one location doesn't mean that one has to do it, or that it is right to do it, or that one will get general accolades for doing so. Jerry Lee Lewis discovered that in 1958.

...

I do find it kind of curious to see such a hostile response to the long-time, well-known privacy policy for a group of projects devoted to education, research and openness of information, particularly one where each editor is personally and directly responsible for each edit s/he makes. Publishing one's words on WMF projects is a *public* act, something that is made clear with every time someone opens an "edit" tab. (If it isn't on the projects you work on, then it ought to be.)

The issue is the aggregation and collation of the data and making it available to others. Why would you consider that some one's edit history is any less personal than what they borrow from the library?

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

6:34 p.m.

Ray Saintonge wrote:

...

wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

Domas Mituzas wrote:

The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make public statements about a user.

we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with pseudonym.

And? People use the same pseudonym on more than one site just as they use the same password on more than one site. Besides some people even enter their real name.

See you acknowledge that there is a problem when wiki activity is allowed to be associated with a named person. Yet the collation and aggregation of data which may make identification easier. What benefit does processing data about individual editors have?

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

6:51 p.m.

Domas Mituzas wrote:

...

Hi, wiki-list!

No ethics here then.

Your editing history reveals a lot about you.

...

2. As an editor, you are participating in a collaborative process, which has quite a lot of meritocracy, so your contribution to the project matters.

Either an action/edit is good or it is not. Why would previous editing history make any difference to the objective facts of the edits? Does the input from someone new have less merit then someone with 'history'? Because that isn't an example of a meritocracy its a clique.

...

5. Germans are more sensitive to privacy issues, and they have probably strictest privacy laws in the world. OTOH, look at (2).

France isn't far off. Other nations are also becoming concerned about the uses online data is put to.

...

6. You seem to demand banning underage editing, which is quite important Wikipedian demographic :)

No one said ban them. That is some hyperbole you've invented.

...

7. We have ethics of open collaborative project that is providing knowledge to the world. This is not tinfoil hat association. GTFO, if you want to imply that we don't have ethics here, just because it doesn't fit your paranoid POV.

What has any of that got to do with collecting data about editors?

David Gerard

7:04 p.m.

On 3 August 2010 22:05, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

...

No ethics here then.

Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling? - d.

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

7:23 p.m.

David Gerard wrote:

...

On 3 August 2010 22:05, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

No ethics here then.

Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?

How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer your question yes.

Michael Snow

7:30 p.m.

wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

...

2. As an editor, you are participating in a collaborative process, which has quite a lot of meritocracy, so your contribution to the project matters.

This argument is simplistic and seductive, but mistaken on many levels. It assumes that every last unit that matters can be isolated, and evaluated purely in that isolation. We learn otherwise from examples like the scientific understanding of actual matter, which shows the limits of such reductionist thinking. An edit is an event or a change in state (maybe a physicist might like to call it a "phase"), but it is not an "objective fact" in the sense you are arguing, even if it hopefully deals in objective facts. We refer to "editorial judgment" in what we do because there are definite judgments involved, which can certainly be evaluated but cannot be reduced to purely mechanical independent processes. Otherwise, we would simply design a program to make all of the changes automatically for us. Instead, things must be evaluated in context, and quite often the context is much more enlightening to the evaluation than the thing in isolation. Imagine trying to deal with vandalism on a wiki with no means of connecting one inappropriate edit with another. Human knowledge does not progress in this fashion; it does not begin at the subatomic level and move outward. Although this has been the cause of many fits and starts in its overall development, it is for very good reason that knowledge works from a rather larger picture. --Michael Snow

John Vandenberg

7:35 p.m.

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:51 AM, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

...

Domas Mituzas wrote:

Hi, wiki-list!

No ethics here then.

Your editing history reveals a lot about you.

Have some respect please. -- John

Przykuta

7:55 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

...

No ethics here then.

Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?

How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer your question yes.

Pls, stop. It is no problem (but probably hard work) to create such lists as made by emijrp. If any xx wiki don't want it, we - (emijrp and me) are able to start private wiki for us with this public data. We will make poupée vaudou for cabal rituals ;p We have "editcount rankings" for years here http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#wikipedians and here http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaNL.htm#wikipedians and here http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm#wikipedians etc. Goodnight przykuta

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

8:18 p.m.

John Vandenberg wrote:

...

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:51 AM, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Domas Mituzas wrote:

Hi, wiki-list!

No ethics here then.

Your editing history reveals a lot about you.

Have some respect please.

Why so? Editing history reveals your interests, maybe your politics, perhaps your religious affiliations, your ethnicity. A whole range of personal data can be mined from 1000s of edits. It may reveal associations with other users, and networks of users. Those groupings may then be traced into social networks like facebook, or linkin.

David Gerard

8:33 p.m.

On 3 August 2010 23:23, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

...

David Gerard wrote: > On 3 August 2010 22:05, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

...

>> No ethics here then.

...

> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a > Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?

...

How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer your question yes.

[citation needed] - d.

Przykuta

8:36 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

...

>> No ethics here then.

> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a > Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?

How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer your question yes.

[citation needed] - d.

please :)

Prodego

8:54 p.m.

My opinion - Once the information is published (by the WMF) you can do anything you want with it, within the scope of what is legal. dewiki's privacy policy isn't endorsed by the WMF, who run the site, and so I wouldn't consider it binding in any way. They may choose to delete things that violate a particular policy if you post it on dewiki, but that is true of many policies. What matters is that the toolserver has an absolutely ridiculous rule requiring that generating statistics about publicly available information be opt in. I can't see how neglecting to do this could possibly violate any laws, as some claim it would - but IANAL. However Wikimedia Deutschland (wikimedia de, not dewiki) owns the toolserver, and they can have whatever silly rules they want. The only issue is the replicated database is accessible only from the toolserver. So there are two options - 1) donate a comparable server to the WMF and create another toolserver where you control the rules or 2) complain to Wikimedia Deutschland, who run the toolserver. Pavel Richter is the "managing director" of Wikimedia Deutschland ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland#Mitarbeiter) - perhaps contact him. Prodego On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Przykuta <przykuta(a)o2.pl> wrote:

...

>> No ethics here then.

> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a > Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?

How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer your question yes.

[citation needed] - d.

please :) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

9:01 p.m.

masti wrote:

...

On 08/03/2010 10:38 PM, wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

Risker wrote: > On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas<midom.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote:

because other countries laws do not mark IP as personal data? Same as cars licence plates. Some people drive car with same licence plates for years. And so what?

For anyone interested this is the 2009 adopted report on privacy of user data on social network sites which would cover wikis Note section 2 for definition: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp163_en.pdf See section 3.1.1 for circumstances where users assume the full responsibility of Data Controllers under the EU Data Protection Directive. Section 3.2 deals with default settings. Section 3.4 sensitive data. Processing data 3.5 and much of teh rest of section 3. Section 4 deals with responsibility WRT minors.

Shane Simmons

9:19 p.m.

...

If you borrowed books from a library with the reasonable expectation of privacy, and such data was made public, I can see the issue. However, if you borrowed books from an open and public source, ( bookcrossing.com comes to mind) which shows you, and everyone else, every book you've logged into the site, you really can't reasonably expect privacy. Rule in thumb: If you can see it about another user, they can see it about you. On all WMF wikis, even without signing in, you could manually compile a list of all pages edited by a certain user, at what date and time, and what words were added to the articles, so on and so forth. If you don't want people to see this information about you... Don't edit. Plain and simply, really. By creating an account and continuing to edit, you forgo any expectation of privacy with the same data. Just my two cents. :) -User:Avicennasis

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

4 Aug 4 Aug

3:11 p.m.

David Gerard wrote:

...

On 3 August 2010 23:23, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

David Gerard wrote: > On 3 August 2010 22:05, <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> No ethics here then.

> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a > Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?

How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer your question yes.

[citation needed]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/060076.html

wiki-list＠phizz.demon.co.uk

3:24 p.m.

Shane Simmons wrote:

...

Its not a question of expecting privacy its a question of requiring privacy. Did you see the proposed EU document and how it would impose liabilities on individuals that aggregate and disseminate personal data? http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp163_en.pdf At present adoption is delayed until next year as it appears that member states are looking to toughen up the rules and penalties: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/04/reding_data_protection/ and to coordinate legislation with the US: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/13/eu_data_protection_deal_us/