[Foundation-l] New draft of privacy policy (urgent)

[Mike Godwin]

Pathoschild writes:

> Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> As to whether users will read it from beginning to end -- well, I
>> assume most won't.
>
> I think that is a problem.

If it is a problem, then are you suggesting that the current privacy  
policy (implemented in 2006) doesn't have this problem?  In my view,  
the draft revision is more readable than the existing privacy policy.

Of course, we can solve the problem of readability by removing  
essential elements and placing them elsewhere. That solution is, to  
me, unsatisfactory, because the people who won't read our privacy  
policy from beginning to end are exactly the same ones who won't click  
to links containing important things like the Wikimedia Foundation's  
philosophy with regard to privacy issues.

All document design that serves multiple purposes requires tradeoffs.   
Given that the privacy policy (which will have legal consequences for  
the Foundation but not for editors, in general) has to function both  
as an inclusive, comprehensive document and as a reasonably accessible  
document (and as an easily referenced document), I think the length  
problem is one we're going to have to live with.

My test for whether a policy gets read is not primarily length -- it's  
whether the language is accessible to ordinary, nontechnical users.  
That's a major area in which the current policy falls short, and if we  
end up with a longer policy because we took the trouble to reframe it  
in ordinary language, I believe that is an appropriate tradeoff.  It  
should be remembered that this policy is not primarily for the purpose  
of serving editors, but for giving notice to the whole world of users  
what we do.

To the extent that you believe a hypertextual document is more likely  
to be read than a longer document, in this context I have to  
disagree.  I've been working with privacy activists and privacy- 
concerned citizens for nearly 20 years now, including nine years at  
EFF, two or three years at CDT, and a couple of years at Public  
Knowledge.  My experience over this period has been (as I have said)  
that those who want to inform themselves fully about privacy policy  
tend to want all the information all in one place. (Really, this is  
true of probably more than 90 percent of privacy-concerned users.)

It should be noted that the existing policy follows exactly the  
principle I have outlined in the preceding paragraph.

> After your original draft I proposed such a separation at
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_Privacy_Policy_June_2008#Rewrite 
> >,
> a complete policy-only version linking to a second editable
> "explanatory material" page. I think this is the ideal solution: we
> have a binding easy-to-read privacy policy, as well as the lengthy
> explanatory material properly separated from binding policy and
> editable by the community.

I've read your proposed draft, and have been influenced by it in many  
ways.  Please don't take my disagreement with you about this single  
issue to reflect anything other than general appreciation and  
gratitude for your efforts in your Rewrite, which I thought were quite  
helpful.


--Mike