> > In reply to Tom Morton's point about privacy - the exposure is no more > (and as we now know, considerably less) than we experience every time > we visit any other site on the 'net.
No... because the banner sent your WP username as part of the link - if I visit any other site in the world they get my IP. If I visited *that* link they get my WP username as well. I think the major objection there was that it was not clear that this is what was happening till *after* you clicked the link. As you say this is no longer a concern - but it was not explained before hand. And till the point that it was it was a reasonable objection; the takeaway being that "next time" it should be explained before to set peoples minds at rest :) people who use Wikipedia (or a very small number of other sites where > they can be familiar with disclosure policies) exclusively, and they > were somehow surprised that the banner took them to an external site > (despite the URL being available via float)... Then those people might > have a legitimate privacy complaint. This was not the issue raised; or at the very little trivialises the main point of objection in favour of the obviously unproblematic. I've been involved extensively in issues of privacy and subterfuge for several years now, as a by product of my work. Although my own view is that open=good (hence, my real name, location etc.) many many people are confused by privacy and upset by the idea of certain things being tracked or discovered. I think that we too much trivialise those concerns as "uninformed" - without understanding that we simply add to the problem *by not being informative ourselves.* Or to put it another way; the correct response here is not to go "oh your being silly, would you like a tin foil hat" but to give the rational explanation that makes someone not-concerned :) Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
