[Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?

[Pronoein]

Hello,

I'm wondering one thing about this new policy applied with some haste,
but I could'nt find the answer - the discussion really lengthy -:
how will discrimation between those who shared their identity and those
who declined will be avoided?
Or maybe I should ask if we should discriminate the anonymous volonteers?
Why are we putting names and faces on persons, in synthesis? Can someone
wrap a summary?


Le 25/02/2011 18:51, Lodewijk a écrit :
> Hi Birgitte,
> 
> thank you for finding that link. I know it has been discussed, but was not
> able to find the discussions.
> 
> The main reason why I asked for the reasoning behind the policy was not so
> much because I was shocked (I was surprised by their choosing of
> communications etc, not so much by the choice itself) but rather to be able
> to make some estimates. The WMF has been collecting this information for a
> long time already of course of stewards and checkusers - and they already
> have my ID-copy for example. However, there were talks about identifying to
> a chapter, and it also is a very big group to suddenly force to do this
> based on only a policy which no employee was able to explain to me the
> reasoning behind. If we don't know those reasons, even if we can look it up,
> we might want to reconsider the policy as well - because maybe times have
> changed and there is no need for it, or a different need.
> 
> It should be clear and transparant why the WMF is collecting this
> information, and what they intend to do with it. If they want to be able to
> sue people - fine, but then just say that. Then people know what they are up
> against, and what the reasoning is. That way alone volunteers can make their
> rational decision. But also chapters, because it might have quite some legal
> complications if the WMF wants to force a chapter to submit private data
> about one of their members because they want to sue this person.
> 
> Therefore I am glad that the staff is taking this back to the board (I
> presume) and that there will be a clarification on these points. I do think
> that we still need a formal answer from the WMF about why they gather this
> information - not because this new influx of to-be-identified people, but
> also for the people currently identified for other functions.
> 
> With kind regards,
> 
> Lodewijk
> 
> 2011/2/25 Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> 
>> I was looking for something unrelated in the archives and came across an
>> email
>> [1] that I believe people might find informative wrt to the Identification
>> Policy which I believe has had discussion tabled for the moment.  It seems
>> to be
>> the original suggestion that WMF needs some sort of identification policy
>> by
>> then volunteer/board-member Erik.  He was *not* a staff member at the time
>> of
>> this message, just to be clear, since people seem to be fond of re-framing
>> debate along such lines lately. Summary of the context follows (Not
>> perfectly
>> accurate chronologically speaking):
>>
>>
>> A female leader in the zh.WP community was harassed/threatened by the
>> creation
>> of an account User:Rape[HerRealName]. Advice was sought in handling the
>> situation. There was talk about going to the authorities. There was talk
>> about
>> which information about the account creator could be given to the
>> authorities
>> under what circumstances. The existing privacy policy was quoted as "6
>> Where it
>> is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the
>> Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." . There was talk about it
>> essentially being a matter of mature judgment to differentiate between
>> derogatory comments, which however reprehensible, do not merit violating a
>> user's privacy and threats of violence which would compel the violation of
>> privacy in order to attempt to prevent such threats from being carried out.
>>  The
>> idea was suggested that perhaps those with the technical ability to access
>> private information need to be identified to WMF so that WMF will know who
>> deal
>> with in case of abuse.
>>
>> It seemed to me that many people were quite surprised that the WMF was
>> planning
>> on recording the identifications of those with access to private
>> information,
>> instead on the non-recording of this correspondense which I believe has
>> been the
>> previous practice. It even seemed to me as though some were shocked at the
>> implication that WMF may perhaps be looking for legal accountability for
>> the
>> judgments made by those with this access. So I found it very interesting
>> when I
>> stumbled across evidence of public discussion of the need to record the
>> identities of trusted users in order to be able to deal with any abuse of
>> private information by one of the Community-seat Board Members before the
>> adoption of the resolution that has become controversial so recently.  I
>> don't
>> mean to suggest that the surprise and shock were insincere, just that they
>> seem
>> to be rather uninformed as to the genesis of the resolution.  It seems to
>> me
>> that those things were in fact the original intentions behind the
>> resolution and
>> the staff does have an obligation, however unpopular this obligation may
>> have
>> become during the time period it has been left unfulfilled, to see to
>> recording
>> such identities.
>>
>> Granted there are good reasons the obligation was left unfulfilled before,
>> namely the lack of confidence in the WMF Office's technical and
>> organizational
>> ability to keep these records secure. But once the WMF Office reaches a
>> level of
>> reliability in organizational and technical competence where that objection
>> is
>> mitigated, they then must address their obligation to keep identification
>> records.  Also there are valid concerns over the ambiguity over whether the
>> access to which particular tools should qualify people as subject to the
>> Identification Resolution. What, however, in hindsight do not appear to be
>> valid
>> concerns to me are why the WMF "wants" to "change" things, or that the
>> decision
>> to keep such records was not in given a proper public place for discussion.
>>
>>
>> I can imagine that the staff  (who are much in contact with Erik who we
>> must
>> grant understood the intentions of a resolution he himself suggested the
>> seed of
>> in 2006) to some degree assumed that the trusted volunteers understood that
>> the
>> Identification Resolution's ultimate goal was the production of records and
>> that
>> practice of destroying correspondence was done out of responsibility for
>> the
>> fact that staff did not feel confident in their current ability to keep
>> such
>> records.  I can also imagine the trusted volunteers who were upset by the
>> idea
>> of such records being kept to some degree assumed because there has
>> sometimes
>> been a practice of destroying identification correspondence that this
>> practice
>> was in fact the agreed upon policy of the  Identification Resolution and
>> also
>> because they could not recall otherwise trusted volunteers to some degree
>> assumed the potential policy of actually keeping identification records and
>> why
>> such records may be needed had never been brought up for public discussion
>> until
>> after it had been adopted.
>>
>> Certainly the exact thoughts and communications during this recent
>> misunderstanding were rather more varied, less articulated, and altogether
>> a
>> shade more grey than  my speculation. But I am confident that my
>> speculations
>> are not entirely inaccurate and that they are completely in good faith.
>> There
>> has recently been a lot of discussion about getting back to the tenet of
>> assuming good faith.  Here is as a good a place to start that journey as
>> any.
>>
>> On the tabled issue we are still left at least two important questions that
>> need
>> resolution through an open discussion that succeeds in convincing those
>> volunteers who may be affected:
>>
>>
>> *How can volunteers be made be confident in the security of their
>> identification
>> as records are being collected, recorded, and stored?  How can this
>> confidence
>> be maintained changes occur at WMF? Do these concerns merit the expense of
>> security audits?
>>
>> *What tools that volunteers use in order to do the work of WMF will require
>> them
>> to become a subject of the Identification Resolution? As new tools are
>> developed, who will be responsible for keeping track of their existence and
>> seeing that it is determined whether or not those who will be given access
>> to
>> them will need to become a subject of the Identification Resolution?
>>
>> Birgitte SB
>>
>> [1]  http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/74095#74095
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l