fredbaud at fairpoint.net
Mon Jun 10 23:53:15 UTC 2013
> David Gerard wrote:
>>On 10 June 2013 18:01, Rand McRanderson <therandshow at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think the key here is not to keep more information about users than
>>In particular - at present. as I understand it, we don't keep full
>>access logs, just 1/1000 samples.
>>We need to not keep full access logs.
> I'm not sure about access log retention. I know what used to be true
> we didn't and frankly couldn't keep full access logs), but I'm not sure
> what the current situation is.
> Related to this, however, is a broader point about hiding versus deleting
> information. We, as a community, have gotten into a pattern of hiding
> (suppressing) information in our databases rather than simply removing it
> outright. This has advantages (chiefly reversibility), but the practice
> sweeping information under the rug rather than taking out the trash can,
> and inevitably will, cause issues. Truly problematic usernames, edits,
> logs really ought to be deleted, not simply suppressed, in my opinion.
> This has come up in the context of database dumps and database
> replication. We're basically asking for this information to one day be
> leaked by retaining it indefinitely (including usernames that out
> individuals, CheckUser logs, content buried inside page histories, etc.).
It is much better to be able to monitor oversighters than to completely
remove the miniscule portion of suppressed material intelligence agencies
might have an interest in.
More information about the Wikimedia-l