+1 Aaron On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew, > > I think it is reasonable to assume that the "Do not track" header isn't > referring to this. > > From http://donottrack.us/ with emphasis added. > >> Do Not Track is a technology and policy proposal that enables users to >> opt out of *tracking by websites they do not visit*, [...] > > > Do not track is explicitly for third party tracking. We are merely > proposing to count those people who do access our sites. Note that, in > this case, we are not interested in obtaining identifiers at all, so the > word "track" seems to not apply. > > It seems like we're looking for something like a "Do Not Log Anything At > All" header. I don't believe that such a thing exists -- but if it did I > think it would be good if we supported it. > > -Aaron > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Andrew Gray <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Dario, Reid, >> >> This seems sensible enough and proposal #3 is clearly the better >> approach. An explicit opt-in opt-out mechanism would not be worth the >> effort to build and would become yet another ignored preferences >> setting after a few weeks... >> >> A couple of thoughts: >> >> * I understand the reasoning for not using do-not-track headers (#4); >> however, it feels a bit odd to say "they probably don't mean us" and >> skip them... I can almost guarantee you'll have at least one person >> making a vocal fuss about not being able to opt-out without an >> account. If we were to honour these headers, would it make a >> significant change to the amount of data available? Would it likely >> skew it any more than leaving off logged-in users? >> >> * Option 3 does releases one further piece of information over and >> above those listed - an approximate ratio of logged in versus >> non-logged-in pageviews for a page. I cannot see any particular >> problem with doing this (and I can think of a couple of fun things to >> use it for) but it's probably worth being aware. >> >> Andrew. >> >> On 13 January 2015 at 07:26, Dario Taraborelli >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I’m sharing a proposal that Reid Priedhorsky and his collaborators at >> Los Alamos National Laboratory recently submitted to the Wikimedia >> Analytics Team aimed at producing privacy-preserving geo-aggregates of >> Wikipedia pageview data dumps and making them available to the public and >> the research community. [1] >> > >> > Reid and his team spearheaded the use of the public Wikipedia pageview >> dumps to monitor and forecast the spread of influenza and other diseases, >> using language as a proxy for location. This proposal describes an >> aggregation strategy adding a geographical dimension to the existing dumps. >> > >> > Feedback on the proposal is welcome on the lists or the project talk >> page on Meta [3] >> > >> > Dario >> > >> > [1] >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Geo-aggregation_of_Wikipedia_pageviews >> > [2] http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003892 >> > [3] >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Geo-aggregation_of_Wikipedia_pageviews >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Analytics mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >> >> >> >> -- >> - Andrew Gray >> [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
