On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Snow<[email protected]> wrote: > As I understand it, nobody is arguing that it's considered acceptable at > this point.
Peter Gervai seemed to argue exactly that, unless I badly misread him: > someone from outside seriously interfere with other project > based on, as it turns out, incorrect informations. . . . > > . . . I do not believe the case actually breached any privacy . . . And so did Tisza Gergő: > More importantly, the privacy policy explicitly states that developers might > have access to the raw logs. The stat is thus in compliance with the letter of > the privacy policy, and I don't see why it would be countrary of its spirit. The privacy policy clearly prohibits "release" of data to outside sources for the purpose of statistical analysis, since that doesn't fall within the six enumerated points under "Release: Policy on Release of Data". I suppose it's arguable by the letter of the policy that sending the data to a server which only a single Wikipedian has access to isn't "release". However, I think it's clear that the intent of the policy was otherwise, and Domas acted in accordance with established policy and with full understanding of the nature of the script he was removing. It might be worth defining "release" more clearly to avoid any confusion in the future. Would it have been any different if it was being sent to the toolserver instead of a totally third-party server, for instance? I'd think not, but it's not fully clear from reading the policy. How about a checkuser downloading some data to his computer for analysis beyond that permitted by the web-based interface? Why is that not release if downloading it to a server is? Does that depend on the amount, intent, or some other purpose? (Or is it release? If so, why is it different from downloading web pages so you can view them in your browser?) Also, there are multiple places where the policy vaguely and redundantly states that logs will not be publicized, in multiple ways: "is not made public", "will not be published", "is not reproduced publicly". In general, there's a lot of repetition that makes the policy hard to draw firm conclusions from. If you just saw those mentions, you might think it was just fine to reproduce it as long as it wasn't actually *public*. It could use more precise and condensed wording. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
