[Foundation-l] Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2
Brian.Mingus at colorado.edu
Sat Jun 6 00:51:20 UTC 2009
This argument - which is effectively that community members should be
considered Wikimedia Foundation staff members - is very brittle. It is
neither sound nor valid. Do yourself a favor and consider the logic of the
other side. It will save you from confusion later when you realize that you
were the only person who didn't see it earlier.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Peter Gervai <grinapo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a few sidenotes now.
> 2009/6/5 Mark (Markie) <newsmarkie at googlemail.com>:
> > There are a few issues with this. Devs have access to logs on WMF
> > not random external servers.
> This is a good suggestion, basically you say that I should request the
> foundation to provide me a server inside WMF with developer access. I
> don't mind that (as long as it have Debian installed).
> This is a good (though a bit expensive) _temporary_ solution, since it
> only serves huwp. It is not impossible to provide service to other
> projects but definitely not for any wp above huwp size, since the
> current solution is a hack and do not scale. (And I could process
> squid logs, naturally, which is a better way to do it.)
> Final solution would be to create either a modified awstats to handle
> the stuff better or to write custom code to make it. I don't really
> have the time to do these just right now.
> > The community cannot decide that Random_user1
> > and Random_user2 etc will agree with the communities view on the stats
> > passed to an external server.
> As you are aware it's not really random user, so what you write is
> more rhetoric and less facts. I debate your statement as I believe the
> community can pretty much decide anything unless it violates some
> higher level policy, and it's been told this predates the PP. And I
> tend to disagree in its violation, but it's an open debate.
> > Also there *may* be issues with the security
> > of that server that means it could be compromised and could probably be
> > accessed by the web hosting company if they so wished.
> Sure, but I happen to be the web hosting company as well. You are
> guessing instead of trying to get informed, as others do around. As I
> told you the only person accessing the site is myself. And
> security-wise there is no 100% security, and it's well possible that
> wikimedia servers tunnel all the data to the chinese secret service.
> You may trust me to know my job as well. :-)
> > I still fail to see how, at this point (not before when there was no
> > this can be considered to be acceptable. IP information etc is still
> Let me help.
> > Release: Policy on Release of Data
> > It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected
> > the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser
> > feature, or through other non-publicly-available methods, may be released
> > Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations:
> It is not the server log, it is not database records, and it is not
> other non-publicly-available method by the staff. So the data was not
> released by the staff to us. (And we not happened to steal it from
> them either.) This complies with the policy.
> Now, let's see that volunteer part. We're volunteers, and some can
> debate that we are using a non-publicly-available method (even if the
> original intent was, in my opinion, clearly to cover methods used on
> the WMF servers, and _not_ covering this); in this case the policy
> requires us (the volunteers) not to release the identifiable data. And
> we comply, since we do not release any personally identifiable data.
> Do you see now?
> > Except as described above, Wikimedia policy does not permit distribution
> > personally identifiable information under any circumstances.
> And it's great that you quoted that, since it shows nicely that we
> comply here as well since we do not distribute p.i.i. under any
> But we - as huwp - don't stick to this server, as I mentioned, and I'd
> gladly put it up on WMF servers, even if this do not really mean or
> change anything. But I find it unacceptable that anyone kill off the
> stats which was running for plenty of years now, without even trying
> to look around. I see that it's pretty easy, since neither of you use
> it, it's somebody else's problem. Try to see for a moment like it's
> And since it was okay for the past 5 years I'd be glad if you would
> continue the discussion WHILE reverting your changes. I don't believe
> a few days would make a difference.
> And another sidenote: if a newspaper makes a few false statements,
> what is the correct way of actions? Telling them [kindly] that they're
> stupid or interfering with your own projects and fellow editors? And
> which is the easier?
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l