Robin McCain, 10/07/2011 07:43:
If I might interject, it seems that the sole purpose of the snail mail
described is to link a physical person to a login name in such a way
that there is some accountability for one's actions that is acceptable
to the organization. Is it really necessary to
Gerard Meijssen, 09/07/2011 10:06:
If you do not trust the person involved, you are crazy to send him a
copy of
your passport. This is a common sense. This policy as it obviously
works..
what is really your issue ?
Do we really need a theoretical approach that only can bring us
Hello,
Is mentioned in a offiical policy on the Dutch Wikipedia here:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpopmisbruik
2011/7/10, Benjamin Chen cnchenmi...@gmail.com:
Gerard Meijssen, 09/07/2011 10:06:
If you do not trust the person involved, you are crazy to send him a
copy of
On 10 July 2011 10:55, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
Is mentioned in a offiical policy on the Dutch Wikipedia here:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpopmisbruik
The relevant paragraph appears to be
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpop#Ontsnappingsclausule
The
This a serious and urgent problem; and the foundation need to look into it
quickly.
In no circumstances should Wikipedia users be receiving copies of other
people's identity documents - it is a privacy nightmare!
Tom
On 10 July 2011 11:03, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 July 2011
Medewerker can mean staff - but literally it just means cooperator, and it
is generally used for anyone editing the encyclopedia on a regular basis.
(ie. active community members). It is however open for misinterpretation.
Just to be clear: the alternative situation was, and would probably be,
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The relevant paragraph appears to be
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpop#Ontsnappingsclausule
The Google translation is In order to be unblocked, the person behind
the corresponding IP address is a letter
Just to be clear: the alternative situation was, and would probably be,
that
people who currently can choose to use this clause, would simply be blocked
forever without a way of getting unblocked.
That's the approach most projects take... and anyway copies of identity
documents don't prove
On 10 July 2011 11:50, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Just to be clear: the alternative situation was, and would probably be,
that
people who currently can choose to use this clause, would simply be blocked
forever without a way of getting unblocked.
That's the approach
On 10 July 2011 11:48, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blokkeringsmeldingen#Ontsnappingsclausule
The Google translation for this one appears to quite definitely be
trying
On 10 July 2011 13:20, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I was reluctant to given the translation doesn't look very
high-quality, and nuance and implications are the issue, which is why
I was asking Dutch speakers what it actually meant.
The original Dutch reads:
Om gedeblokkeerd te
I'm struggling to see the point of this policy. At first, I assumed it
was a way of proving an account isn't a sockpuppet (each sends a copy
of their passport, thus proving there are two real people involved -
not particularly conclusive proof, given how easy it is to get hold of
a scan of someone
Do they have notaries in the Netherlands? Why not simply ask them to mail a
notarized statement that I am Foo at such an address and request an ublock so
I may edit as Bar? I still am not sure if this is something I would completely
endorse, but at least it would be meaningful and not so
On 10 July 2011 18:08, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
Do they have notaries in the Netherlands? Why not simply ask them to mail a
notarized statement that I am Foo at such an address and request an ublock
so I may edit as Bar? I still am not sure if this is something I would
completely
The next question becomesand what does this trusted person do with the
information? If it is destroyed promptly, then there's really not much
point; if it is retained, I'd like to see how this meets local and EU
privacy policies.
I agree pretty much entirely with David Gerard on this one; I'm
This time I've cleaned the list of Wikimedia [content] projects from
meta:Special:SiteMatrix [1] and calculated some numbers [2].
So, for statistics, there are:
* 270 Wikimedia languages (however, you would see below that the term
language is not quite precise)
* 270 Wikipedias
* 146 Wiktionaries
2011/7/10 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
and one in revived language (Manx).
Ahem.
The definition of a revived language is very controversial, but if
you count them, don't forget Hebrew (120,000+ articles) and Cornish
(2,000+ articles).
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 21:40, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/7/10 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
and one in revived language (Manx).
Ahem.
The definition of a revived language is very controversial, but if
you count them, don't forget Hebrew (120,000+ articles)
Hi,
Vladimir Putin has been awarded the Quadriga Award, which is dedicated
to all of those whose courage tears down walls and whose commitment
builds bridges[1]. This is the same award Wikipedia received in 2008
(Wikipedia being represented by Jimmy Wales). The award has been
forwarded to
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:46, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
This a serious and urgent problem; and the foundation need to look into it
quickly.
In no circumstances should Wikipedia users be receiving copies of other
people's identity documents - it is a privacy nightmare!
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 19:18, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The next question becomesand what does this trusted person do with the
information? If it is destroyed promptly, then there's really not much
point; if it is retained, I'd like to see how this meets local and EU
privacy
Well I guess that people get blocked by good reasons and along with
policies, and they would stay blocked. No need to send anything to
anyone, they stay blocked, everything's normal.
If someone want to have an extreme exception and want to show a good
reason to be extremely exeptionaly handled
On 10 July 2011 21:28, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
Well I don't know about your EU but in ours we have a method called
collecting private data by agreement for a given purpose and it is
completely legal. If I say to you that you have to provide this and
that private data if you want
On 10 July 2011 16:28, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 19:18, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The next question becomesand what does this trusted person do with
the
information? If it is destroyed promptly, then there's really not much
point; if it is
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 22:53, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 July 2011 21:28, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
We're not saying it's illegal.
He just said that. I did not reply to your statements. :-)
We're saying it's grossly unfit for
Wikimedia and laughs at the privacy
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 23:10, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm thinking more of whether or not it is retained, and precisely how it is
retained. Is it kept in a locked box somewhere? Sitting on someone's desk?
Accessible to other individuals?
Which is clearly the good way to ask the
Are you calling me a troll now?
2011/7/10 Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 23:10, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm thinking more of whether or not it is retained, and precisely how it
is
retained. Is it kept in a locked box somewhere? Sitting on someone's
desk?
Seem to work though.
Does it? Where is the evidence for this? I'm not being hasty in forming a
firm judgement here - other than to say it doesn't, on the face of it, seem
like a good idea for a project to be doing this.
And if the details of the handling of private data is well outlined and
I would personally recomend you people to send your questions to
RonaldBhttp://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:RonaldB(the
*one and only* person who receive those datas)
I'm not dutch, but that system is in place since Jully
Back in the 1980's BBS sysops validated new users on some of the more
abused dial-up BBS systems via snail mail. The person had to provide a
real address in order to receive their login password - just as many
systems use email addresses today. The big difference between these two
mechanisms
Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us
have access to.
As a sort of aside-- everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes
people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their
agenda.
I've always wondered if we couldn't peel off' the people who
Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us
have access to.
As a sort of aside-- everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes
people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their
agenda.
I've always wondered if we couldn't peel off' the people who
You can always make Wikinfo a sister project.
Fred
That would be a rather elegant solution, wouldn't it.
At a minimum, recognizing Wikinfo as Part of the Wikimedia Movement
and incorporating links to it into our controversial articles.And
then a next nice step would be if Wikinfo could
33 matches
Mail list logo
