[Foundation-l] Genisis of WMF Identification policy?

Sat Feb 26 10:57:08 UTC 2011

The reason for that policy is exactly what this discussion is all about. If
I understand correctly, Philippe is going to do some research into that and
will get back to us once he has a clear answer.

Of course when there are good reasons for it, there is nothing against
"discriminating" anonymous people - you can't run for the board without
giving that up either, for example. But to make that decision you would need
more information.

Lodewijk

2011/2/26 Pronoein <pronoein at gmail.com>

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>