Ori, I agree on all points. My assertions are this:
1. DNT means 3rd party tracking. It's in the definition. 2. However, we'd like to have a strict interpretation and act beyond the definition. This empowers our users and sets a good precedent. 3. The categorical exclusion of a substantial set of our users from field studies is concerning and can cause problem. Though Nuria pointed out that DNT/IE10 is not the only potential categorical exclusion, that does not reduce the problem. If we can can confirm that this won't cause a substantial issue or implement a strategy to make sure it does not, then this won't be a problem. -Aaron On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Ori Livneh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> What I find concerning is the idea that a biased subset of our users >> would be categorically ignored for this type of evaluation. If you agree >> with me that such evaluation is valuable to our users, I think you ought to >> also find such categorical exclusions concerning >> > (In the e-mail below I sometimes use "we" to mean "Wikimedians" and > sometimes to mean "Wikimedia Foundation employees". I am aware that this is > a public discussion and that not all participants are employees of the > Foundation. Hopefully the context will make my meaning clear.) > > Aaron's point is valid. If we collect any data at all, we are morally > obligated to do so in a way that can actually support rigorous research on > questions of broad value to the community and humanity as a whole. > Collecting data in a manner that we know cannot support serious research is > morally obnoxious and it invalidates the mandate we claim to collect any > data at all. > > That said, I am not convinced that adopting a strong interpretation of DNT > (and acting on it) would substantially compromise our ability to do > research. The bias that it potentially introduces is of comparable > magnitude to the risks of bias that scientists routinely accept in the > interest of meeting ethical standards and respecting the rights of > individuals. The fact that participation in drug trials is voluntary and > that the compensation (when there is any) is usually fixed at a set amount > is a good example. > > I also think that our ability to conduct research would be compromised far > more substantially were we to lose the confidence of our users. The only > hope we have of gaining an understanding of Wikimedia is (in my opinion) > through peer collaboration with our community. The question of whether we > (Foundation employees) will be able to support a broad community of inquiry > has much higher stakes than whether or not our data is fully representative > of all user-agents. > > The fact that there is no strong legal requirement forcing our hand here > and that weaker interpretations of the header are defensible and plausible > means that there is an opportunity here to be lead by example and to send a > strong message to our community and to the internet at large about our > values and our commitment to our users. It's an opportunity I think we > should take. > > _______________________________________________ > Analytics mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics > >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
