Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
2012/6/13 Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl: I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But the dynamic assignment option does alleviate some people's privacy concerns, right? It depends on their OS. On Windows, OSX, iOS and Ubuntu (so over 95% of all traffic considering an equal distribution of IPv6 addresses), I would say yes, since they have enabled the privacy extension by default. For the rest of the world, not really. Even if the first half of the address is dynamic, the last part will be static and linked to your Ethernet adapter. Strainu ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
On a separate note about IPv6: I just saw the first IPv6 anon entry appearing on my watchlist. It's exciting! Deryck On 13 June 2012 13:43, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But the dynamic assignment option does alleviate some people's privacy concerns, right? One particular concern, which isn't really much different from IPv4. And in something like 90% of browser configurations, you're already giving out a semi-static unique string with every request anyway. (see https://panopticlick.eff.org/) The bigger concern for WMF is the possibility for increased privacy. ps. We all know that everyone needs to switch to IPv6 eventually. Unless IPv7 or IPv8 comes out first. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] speedydeletion.wika.com lauched
ok kim, thanks again for your constructive feedback, and thanks to everyone who has given input. It is great to have a supportive group of people like you to talk to. now i have upgraded the code, including templates and full history. It gets all new articles not seen before every 10 minutes. Also the uploading to the wikia is working but without the history. I think this is a good deal. for the articles that we dont have the history for, people can ask an admin for restoring the history if they really want it, I dont have it for the old articles. Here is an example new dump : http://archive.org/download/wikipedia-delete-2012-06/wtarchive130612111041.zip code is here github.com/h4ck3rm1k3/pywikipediabot and github.com/h4ck3rm1k3/wikiteam mike On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: yes, good point, and while checking this I found a problem. it turns out that up to now I dont have the full history, I have modified the extractor to pull the full version. For the other articles, I dont have the full history. mike On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nlwrote: On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 05:44:40AM +, Mike Dupont wrote: Hi, Again the full history is available on archive.org and i think that no one is going to think that this data is from me, it is clearly marked as being from wikipedia. ps. It occurs to me that if the full history is available on archive.org, that linking to the relevant archive.org data might be adequate. sincerely, Kim Bruning ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
IPv6 is designed to operate on a one IP = one device/connection (non-NAT) basis, far more than IPv4. Privacy policy coversd personally identifiable information. An IP becomes personally identifying when it broadly allows a person to be identified. If IPv4 can be personally identifying then IPv6 is guaranteed to be more so, because of its design and intended usage. It looks like the switch to making the UserID on public record more anonymous for non-logged in users (hashing their IP for example) could usefully be brought in, simultaneous with or parallel to IPv6. As Erik says, both are desirable verging on necessary at some point, and the one mitigates against the issues of the other. It serves a second purpose - a good system providing a more anonymous UserID of public record would also mean that IPv4 and IPv6 users would have similar names in the public record and block lists, meaning that the same tools and interfaces would work equally with both. This would simplify matters for future as well. Without second guessing a suitable method, I would like to see unlogged-in users represented by a name of the form IP user XXX or Not logged in Y or some such; there would be difficulties in that we want similar IPs to look similar without providing easy ways to identify the genuine underlying IP (eg by noticing other similar 's whose IPs are known). It's also going to have implications for vandalism and abuse related activities, where it is often helpful that action is easily identified as a similar IP. It would be nice not to lose that sense of similar IP while not exposing the genuine IP. Choice of method is a technical matter, I'd suggest if we move on both, then hopefully IPv6 will mark a step where anonymity improves and is available to logged in and not logged in users. But either way, IPv6 does have privacy implications for non-logged in users. IPv4 did too, but historically we let it alone and it was less severe. With IPv6 it may not be, and action would be much more important. FT2 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hkwrote: On a separate note about IPv6: I just saw the first IPv6 anon entry appearing on my watchlist. It's exciting! Deryck On 13 June 2012 13:43, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But the dynamic assignment option does alleviate some people's privacy concerns, right? One particular concern, which isn't really much different from IPv4. And in something like 90% of browser configurations, you're already giving out a semi-static unique string with every request anyway. (see https://panopticlick.eff.org/) The bigger concern for WMF is the possibility for increased privacy. ps. We all know that everyone needs to switch to IPv6 eventually. Unless IPv7 or IPv8 comes out first. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: IPv6 is designed to operate on a one IP = one device/connection (non-NAT) basis, far more than IPv4. Privacy policy coversd personally identifiable information. An IP becomes personally identifying when it broadly allows a person to be identified. If IPv4 can be personally identifying then IPv6 is guaranteed to be more so, because of its design and intended usage. It looks like the switch to making the UserID on public record more anonymous for non-logged in users (hashing their IP for example) could usefully be brought in, simultaneous with or parallel to IPv6. As Erik says, both are desirable verging on necessary at some point, and the one mitigates against the issues of the other. It serves a second purpose - a good system providing a more anonymous UserID of public record would also mean that IPv4 and IPv6 users would have similar names in the public record and block lists, meaning that the same tools and interfaces would work equally with both. This would simplify matters for future as well. Without second guessing a suitable method, I would like to see unlogged-in users represented by a name of the form IP user XXX or Not logged in Y or some such; there would be difficulties in that we want similar IPs to look similar without providing easy ways to identify the genuine underlying IP (eg by noticing other similar 's whose IPs are known). It's also going to have implications for vandalism and abuse related activities, where it is often helpful that action is easily identified as a similar IP. It would be nice not to lose that sense of similar IP while not exposing the genuine IP. Choice of method is a technical matter, I'd suggest if we move on both, then hopefully IPv6 will mark a step where anonymity improves and is available to logged in and not logged in users. But either way, IPv6 does have privacy implications for non-logged in users. IPv4 did too, but historically we let it alone and it was less severe. With IPv6 it may not be, and action would be much more important. FT2 Why is improving anonymity a goal? Our privacy policy governs the disclosure of non-public information, but the IP addresses of editors without an account have always been effectively public. Are IP editors clamoring for more privacy? Is masking IPv6 addresses more important than the uses to which IP addresses are currently put? Is masking a better way to solve the problem of potentially more identifiable information in IPv6 than, say, a more prominent disclosure and disclaimer? Would masking the IP addresses only for logged-out users be a worthwhile change, given the ease of registering an account? Would they remain masked in the histories of project dumps? There are a lot of questions to answer here before it's reasonable to start suggesting changes be made, and these are only some. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: snipping FT2's comment Why is improving anonymity a goal? Our privacy policy governs the disclosure of non-public information, but the IP addresses of editors without an account have always been effectively public. Are IP editors clamoring for more privacy? Is masking IPv6 addresses more important than the uses to which IP addresses are currently put? Is masking a better way to solve the problem of potentially more identifiable information in IPv6 than, say, a more prominent disclosure and disclaimer? Would masking the IP addresses only for logged-out users be a worthwhile change, given the ease of registering an account? Would they remain masked in the histories of project dumps? There are a lot of questions to answer here before it's reasonable to start suggesting changes be made, and these are only some. I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking the *publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses. The only reason that we publish the IP addresses of any logged-out user is for attribution purposes, although some use it for other reasons (both positive and nefarious). Quite honestly, it doesn't matter what information is put in place in the publicly viewable logs, provided it's consistent. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Pro-active user privacy (Was: Update on IPv6)
On 13 June 2012 11:09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Why is improving anonymity a goal? Our privacy policy governs the disclosure of non-public information, but the IP addresses of editors without an account have always been effectively public. Are IP editors clamoring for more privacy? Is masking IPv6 addresses more important than the uses to which IP addresses are currently put? Is masking a better way to solve the problem of potentially more identifiable information in IPv6 than, say, a more prominent disclosure and disclaimer? Would masking the IP addresses only for logged-out users be a worthwhile change, given the ease of registering an account? Would they remain masked in the histories of project dumps? There are a lot of questions to answer here before it's reasonable to start suggesting changes be made, and these are only some. Valuable questions. There is certainly an argument that we should consider changing how we doing things so that unregistered (mis-named anonymous) editors are, in fact, more rather than less anonymous, whichever IP version they use to connect. We already take actions far beyond what most Internet sites do to protect their privacy even though it's clear the vast majority of the Web's users neither know nor care about such choices. There are lots of things we could do - for instance, blocking all edits except by logged-in editors would solve this (but is profoundly against our general operating principles), auto-generating accounts by cookie (messy, and would need the privacy policy changed), blurring some arbitrary part of the IP (the last one octet for IP4 and four for IP6, perhaps), etc. - but first we should have the discussion of what we believe we want to achieve. Can I suggest that we try to discuss this on-wiki (as it's more inclusive of the community)? - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_user or something linked from there would be the 'obvious' place to start. Yours, -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] (Writing in a personal capacity) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking the *publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses. The only reason that we publish the IP addresses of any logged-out user is for attribution purposes, although some use it for other reasons (both positive and nefarious). Quite honestly, it doesn't matter what information is put in place in the publicly viewable logs, provided it's consistent. Risker Sure, that's the assertion, but it leaves unanswered a lot of why questions. Why should we make publicly viewable attributions less identifiable than they have been for a decade? Is that step valuable at all, given the reality that anyone likely to use the IP address for nefarious reasons would simply register an account? I think a stable, predictable privacy regime that doesn't discourage users is a perfectly good goal which Wikimedia has largely achieved. I'm not sure there is a lot of value in FT2's suggestion from a privacy perspective (it would make far more sense to make the mask applicable to everyone but CUs or admins), let alone whether a significantly more anonymous method for contributing is either necessary or desirable. ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Risker wrote: I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking the *publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses. The only reason that we publish the IP addresses of any logged-out user is for attribution purposes, although some use it for other reasons (both positive and nefarious). Quite honestly, it doesn't matter what information is put in place in the publicly viewable logs, provided it's consistent. A couple of weeks ago, Brion Vibber and I started walking through a series of thoughts about eliminating publicly viewable IP addresses altogether, creating Proto Accounts. That is, to completely anonymize anonymous users (by calling them Anonymous XX) and at the same time creating system whereby Anonymous users might be encouraged to become registered users (and retain the edits they did anonymously). This would work by back-loading the account creation process: 1) User makes anonymous edit (as Anonymous 1234). Edit is logged as Anonymous 1234). 2) User is given call-to-action to convert to a registered account. 3) User fills out account form (username, password, email) (let's call them AwesomeSauce89) 4) Proto account gets renamed to AwesomeSauce89; the edits that were under Anonymous 1234 are now listed as being by AwesomeSauce89 I also spoke with Tim Starling about this in Berlin and he agreed that it was a good idea. However, this would be no small feat. A big part of the problems involved in this type of anonymizing involve how we deal with range blocks. Would this be something people might like to see happen? --- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
Wikipedia has held since the start, a philosophy that some aspects of neutral accessible editing are enhanced by pseudonymity. One only need look at early policies and current policies to see they started with strong strict views on this, and retain strong strict views. Reasons where it matters are codified in policies themselves - freedom to edit without fear of social backlash, freedom to edit unpopular views and topics or those which would be professionally harmful, freedom to edit from places and regimes where uninhibited authorship would be dangerous, freedom to be judged by the edits one makes and not the person one is. Obviously there are negatives too - ease of abuse, reduced ease of detecting bad behavior, and so on. None the less over time the view has stuck, pseudonymity is a cornerstone of the environment we offer users and that users may rely upon. In that context, improving pseudonymity is a valid goal. That an area established 10 years ago has not yet been fully revised or brought into the 2010-2020 era is not salient. The same could be said of many Mediawiki functions. Pseudonymity is de facto in the culture, and part of our multi-branched attempt to facilitate neutral open editing. It is an area of interest and an area where improvemenet and advancement are worthwhile to seek. It is odd to rationalize that a user with an account has safeguards which users without accounts should not deserve. Most of the rest of your questiopns are technical - how would this or that be done? Those technical questions need technical consideration, but the basic question is a non technicval one, as is my comment. This is a desirable area to dovetail. How that works and to what extent cost v benefit means we do some things but accept limitations on others, are questions that technical people will need to consider. FT2 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: (snip) Why is improving anonymity a goal? Our privacy policy governs the disclosure of non-public information, but the IP addresses of editors without an account have always been effectively public. Are IP editors clamoring for more privacy? Is masking IPv6 addresses more important than the uses to which IP addresses are currently put? Is masking a better way to solve the problem of potentially more identifiable information in IPv6 than, say, a more prominent disclosure and disclaimer? Would masking the IP addresses only for logged-out users be a worthwhile change, given the ease of registering an account? Would they remain masked in the histories of project dumps? There are a lot of questions to answer here before it's reasonable to start suggesting changes be made, and these are only some. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Risker wrote: I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking the *publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses. The only reason that we publish the IP addresses of any logged-out user is for attribution purposes, although some use it for other reasons (both positive and nefarious). Quite honestly, it doesn't matter what information is put in place in the publicly viewable logs, provided it's consistent. A couple of weeks ago, Brion Vibber and I started walking through a series of thoughts about eliminating publicly viewable IP addresses altogether, creating Proto Accounts. That is, to completely anonymize anonymous users (by calling them Anonymous XX) and at the same time creating system whereby Anonymous users might be encouraged to become registered users (and retain the edits they did anonymously). This would work by back-loading the account creation process: 1) User makes anonymous edit (as Anonymous 1234). Edit is logged as Anonymous 1234). 2) User is given call-to-action to convert to a registered account. 3) User fills out account form (username, password, email) (let's call them AwesomeSauce89) 4) Proto account gets renamed to AwesomeSauce89; the edits that were under Anonymous 1234 are now listed as being by AwesomeSauce89 I also spoke with Tim Starling about this in Berlin and he agreed that it was a good idea. However, this would be no small feat. A big part of the problems involved in this type of anonymizing involve how we deal with range blocks. Would this be something people might like to see happen? In my view, no. I think we need to balance the risk argument for anonymity (dissidents, whistleblowers, people editing topics they wouldn't want to be publicly associated with, etc.) with the benefits of partial anonymity. Among these benefits I'd cite the many news items regarding the discovery of fishy editing patterns from Congressional offices, corporate offices, government agencies, political candidates, etc. We're an organization with competing aims: we'd like to be as transparent as possible, and by and large believe in the value of radical transparency, but we also want to protect our users from undue harm. I think we can maintain that balance by having a very stable and predictable approach to privacy, and by being abundantly clear with our disclosures and user education with respect to privacy. The above approach wipes out any transparency in favor of complete privacy, without (to my mind) establishing the particular benefits of that outcome. ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: The original Wikipedia platform (lo those long years ago) published only partial IP addresses. Today, significantly less transparency seems to mean create an acccount to many people. However, that is antithetical to the anyone can edit principle on which our projects are based. Anyone can edit, as long as they don't mind that everyone in the world will know where they're from, what ISP they use, and possibly even the physical location from which they are editing and what equipment they're using to do so, unless they create an account is what it has become. I'm not sure I understand how create an account is antithetical to anyone can edit. Are you saying there is some bar to creating an account that prevents some people from editing? People can choose to use an account name or choose to edit from an IP address. You're suggesting making account names mandatory and dynamic, I'm not seeing how that is a necessary outgrowth of anyone can edit. We want the edits. We don't need to know the rest, and never have. If we needed to know that information, we would have decided not to permit account-based editing in the first place. There's no template at the bottom of the talk pages of editors with accounts that allows identification and geolocation of their IP. If it's useful for logged-out editors, it is just as useful for logged-in ones, according to the transparency logic. Sure - the same principle that makes IP information useful for transparency purposes works as well on IP editors as it does on account holders. But account holders have chosen to restrict access to that information, and IP editors have not. A better solution to mandating automatically assigned account names is to provide reasonable education and disclosure (say, a pop-up on first edit or something else fairly prominent) to people editing without an account. That way we let users judge privacy for themselves, and preserve the usefulness of IP data when a user chooses to disclose it. Risker wrote: I am struggling to think of any other website of any nature that I have ever visited that publicly identifies editors/posters by their IP address, except for a few other wikis. I've seen unregistered user before, and similar nomenclature. Can anyone think of another site (regardless of purpose) that links the editor/poster publicly to their full IP address? IP address, no. Facebook profile (which is, as for most people, under my real name)? Sure. Even so, a comparison between Wikimedia and Google or the NY Times or Facebook or Gawker etc. fails because it does not recognize the many philosophical and practical differences between those sites and a Wikimedia project. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Nathan, I'm still trying to come up with *any* site that permits unregistered users to post but also publishes their full IP address. Can you think of any at all? Let's not limit it to the big guys, let's really think this through and explore what is going on outside of our own bailiwick. Just because we've done things for a long time doesn't mean we shouldn't improve ourselves. Well, there are many sites (my local newspaper for instance) that permit users with no site-specific registration to comment, but only using a Facebook profile. Assuming the commenter is following Facebook's account policies, that is at least as revealing as an IP address. And we can just as easily look at it from the other direction - are there really other sites out there like Wikipedia, with our mix of mission and global impact for a user-generated product? I think Wikipedia is unique in many ways, and I believe that renders the comparison you're attempting to make not useful. And finally, you take for granted a principle that I have challenged - mandating complete anonymity for all users (other than those who edit using a real name) is not, in my view, the same as improv[ing] ourselves. I'd like to get other opinions on this, so I'm going to hold off on posting again in this thread... at least for as long as I can stand it :-P ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] .wiki TLD
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Little bit confused as to who this chap is... any ideas? It looks like he works for AboutUs.org: http://icannwiki.com/index.php/Raymond_King Yep :) He's been a core part of the wider wiki community for a long time and is personally involved with ICANN as well. -- phoebe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
I was looking over old discussions, and wondered: who originally came up with the notion that the principle of least surprise should apply to educational content? If it existed before Wikimedia, who introduced it to the image filter discussion, on what rationale? [Personally I think it's an inanity - an education that doesn't turn your head upside down might as well be basket weaving - and it's too easily applied to shocking and outrageous concepts that children shouldn't be exposed to, like homosexuality or rights for minorities - but I could of course be convinced I'm wrong.] - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
Not sure, but I think it's the principle of least /astonishment/ - which may be an important difference... Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk On 13 June 2012 21:30, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I was looking over old discussions, and wondered: who originally came up with the notion that the principle of least surprise should apply to educational content? If it existed before Wikimedia, who introduced it to the image filter discussion, on what rationale? [Personally I think it's an inanity - an education that doesn't turn your head upside down might as well be basket weaving - and it's too easily applied to shocking and outrageous concepts that children shouldn't be exposed to, like homosexuality or rights for minorities - but I could of course be convinced I'm wrong.] - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On 13 June 2012 21:32, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Not sure, but I think it's the principle of least /astonishment/ - which may be an important difference... Pretty sure it doesn't for educational purposes. I think my objection stands in its entirety. (I note that in interface design, principle of least astonishment is in opposition to educating the user. With educational materials, that is ahahaha indeed the point.) - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On 13 June 2012 21:44, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be displayed where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article on penis or vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or vagina), I don't recall this being conceded. (The discussions of image filter plans seemed to me to assume that images considered unsuitable would indeed be filtered in such places.) So who first brought the phrase into the discussion? - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
Earliest I have it on a Wikimedia list is from WikiEn-L on 2/11/08 from Ian Woollard (written as principle of least surprise), in the context of a Muhammad images thread started by Jimbo -- but my logs only go back to the summer of 07. On-wiki, I see it being used in naming convention arguments for years, as early as April 2005. I'm not sure when it made the transition from user interface design principle to a more general content principle, but it looks like (from a web search) it was commonly used for Ruby as early as 2002-2003. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On 13 June 2012 21:56, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Earliest I have it on a Wikimedia list is from WikiEn-L on 2/11/08 from Ian Woollard (written as principle of least surprise), in the context of a Muhammad images thread started by Jimbo -- but my logs only go back to the summer of 07. Bingo - and he specifically invoked it to minimise offence. On-wiki, I see it being used in naming convention arguments for years, as early as April 2005. Yeah, that's arguably a user interface issue (with arguments being somewhat alleviated by a forest of redirects). I see it's been commonly used around user interface issues in Wikimedia for many years. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be displayed where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article on penis or vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or vagina), but wouldn't be immediately displayed where you wouldn't expect them (e.g. if you want to find information on necklaces made of pearls). Whether that is called 'principle of least surprise' or 'principle of least astonishment' or something else is semantics... Thanks, Mike That's exactly how I understand the idea as well. As for where it came from -- from my imperfect memory, the idea has been kicking around in the English Wikipedia style guide and in Commons for some years (I found it in a style guide history in 2004, also cf Nathan's research). In the context of this discussion, however, the principle of least astonishment had I believe been brought up early on; it was highlighted in the Harris report as a potentially useful concept for thinking about the whole range of issues around handling controversial content. This was actually a separate bullet point/idea from the recommendation to allow readers to hide images. They're not necessarily connected; overall I haven't heard a lot of complaints about trying to implement the principle of least astonishment, i.e. by improving search etc. The concept itself, as a usability term, has been around for a while; there's a (not very good) article, which was started in 2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment I don't know when it came into use in the world at large. -- phoebe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
I can't say who came up with it. The point I first became aware of it was the posts, and consultation reports series, on Meta. It may well have predated that though, in which case I couldn't say. Advanced search in old enwp and meta dumps, or mailing lists would be a way to explore before that. The topic was only discussed _in depth_ in a limited number of places easily identified by search, the expressions are very distinctive, and a list of wiki pages or list threads can be searched fairly easily to find exact posts or dates. FT2 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I was looking over old discussions, and wondered: who originally came up with the notion that the principle of least surprise should apply to educational content? If it existed before Wikimedia, who introduced it to the image filter discussion, on what rationale? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
David Gerard, 13/06/2012 23:02: On-wiki, I see it being used in naming convention arguments for years, as early as April 2005. Yeah, that's arguably a user interface issue (with arguments being somewhat alleviated by a forest of redirects). I see it's been commonly used around user interface issues in Wikimedia for many years. And still you had reactions like this: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/044011.html (notice the other big threads in the same month about images...). Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
On 13 June 2012 22:02, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 21:56, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Earliest I have it on a Wikimedia list is from WikiEn-L on 2/11/08 from Ian Woollard (written as principle of least surprise), in the context of a Muhammad images thread started by Jimbo -- but my logs only go back to the summer of 07. Bingo - and he specifically invoked it to minimise offence. Sure, but it also applies to getting back what you expect. A male heterosexual friend of mine typed in the word Boobs into Commons search engine a while back and came back with the page Boobs on Bikes. It's not a matter of minimising offence, it's simply that if you type in one thing and get something else and rather surprising, that's a problem. That a subset of that surprise happens to be involve people getting offended doesn't mean that avoiding unnecessary surprise isn't a laudable goal. There's surprise in the reading a book and learning something new sense, then there is surprise in the being told that the book is on this shelf, but instead it's on a different shelf sense. The two are rather different, and I fear some conflation is going on. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Pro-active user privacy (Was: Update on IPv6)
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:22:52AM -0700, James Forrester wrote: Can I suggest that we try to discuss this on-wiki (as it's more inclusive of the community)? - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_user or something linked from there would be the 'obvious' place to start. Wow, current state of affairs is (paraphrased) new users are not welcome? :-( That might explain some issues! sincerely, Kim Bruning ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed and any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to provide information to the accused. See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing, where the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would be a violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer of the checkuser. This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before something can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed. Ergo Catch-22 I know checkusers keep a private wiki https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to our privacy policy we are supposed to purge our information regularly (on wiki CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal of private information on the wiki? My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto confirmed to be notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves at any point, and any mentions of themselves on the CU wiki should be retrievable. John ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed and any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to provide information to the accused. See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing, where the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would be a violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer of the checkuser. This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before something can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed. Ergo Catch-22 I know checkusers keep a private wiki https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to our privacy policy we are supposed to purge our information regularly (on wiki CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal of private information on the wiki? My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto confirmed to be notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves at any point, and any mentions of themselves on the CU wiki should be retrievable. Perhaps some full disclosure should be made here John. You are a checkuser yourself, have access to the checkuser-L mailing list and the checkuser wiki, helped to set up the Audit Subcommittee on the English Wikipedia (which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on request); you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries mailing list because you are a former arbitrator, a checkuser and an oversighter on enwp. (so have access there to express your concerns or suggest changes in standards), It seems you are complaining about a specific case, and instead of talking things out about this specific case, you've decided to propose an entirely different checkusering standard. I'll point out in passing that half of the spambots blocked in recent weeks by checkusers were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious vandals can hit the autoconfirmed threshold easily on most projects. Full disclosure on my part: I am also an Enwp checkuser and a member of the Arbitration Committee. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
I am not a checkuser, I do not have access to checkuser-l, the CU wiki, or any other private information. This goes far beyond the one case, I was just using it as a recent example On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed and any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to provide information to the accused. See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing, where the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would be a violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer of the checkuser. This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before something can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed. Ergo Catch-22 I know checkusers keep a private wiki https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to our privacy policy we are supposed to purge our information regularly (on wiki CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal of private information on the wiki? My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto confirmed to be notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves at any point, and any mentions of themselves on the CU wiki should be retrievable. Perhaps some full disclosure should be made here John. You are a checkuser yourself, have access to the checkuser-L mailing list and the checkuser wiki, helped to set up the Audit Subcommittee on the English Wikipedia (which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on request); you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries mailing list because you are a former arbitrator, a checkuser and an oversighter on enwp. (so have access there to express your concerns or suggest changes in standards), It seems you are complaining about a specific case, and instead of talking things out about this specific case, you've decided to propose an entirely different checkusering standard. I'll point out in passing that half of the spambots blocked in recent weeks by checkusers were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious vandals can hit the autoconfirmed threshold easily on most projects. Full disclosure on my part: I am also an Enwp checkuser and a member of the Arbitration Committee. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
My apologies to you John - and also to John Vandenberg, whose name popped up when I cursored over this. Please do consider expressing a concern to the Audit Subcommittee with respect to this case, or alternately to the Ombudsman. Risker On 13 June 2012 19:37, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: I am not a checkuser, I do not have access to checkuser-l, the CU wiki, or any other private information. This goes far beyond the one case, I was just using it as a recent example On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed and any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to provide information to the accused. See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing, where the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would be a violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer of the checkuser. This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before something can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed. Ergo Catch-22 I know checkusers keep a private wiki https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to our privacy policy we are supposed to purge our information regularly (on wiki CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal of private information on the wiki? My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto confirmed to be notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves at any point, and any mentions of themselves on the CU wiki should be retrievable. Perhaps some full disclosure should be made here John. You are a checkuser yourself, have access to the checkuser-L mailing list and the checkuser wiki, helped to set up the Audit Subcommittee on the English Wikipedia (which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on request); you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries mailing list because you are a former arbitrator, a checkuser and an oversighter on enwp. (so have access there to express your concerns or suggest changes in standards), It seems you are complaining about a specific case, and instead of talking things out about this specific case, you've decided to propose an entirely different checkusering standard. I'll point out in passing that half of the spambots blocked in recent weeks by checkusers were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious vandals can hit the autoconfirmed threshold easily on most projects. Full disclosure on my part: I am also an Enwp checkuser and a member of the Arbitration Committee. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:42 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: PS I am not a former arb, do not have access to functionaries mailing list, I do not have access nor have ever had access to any of the above including Oversight. I was just throwing out autoconfirmed as a line in the sand, we can adjust the line so that normal users can be notified while excluding spambots. One point could be say 50 edits and at least a month old account? Using a similarly arbitrary high threshhold: how often are checks - order of magnitude - made on users who are eligible to vote in arbcom elections? SJ At least every day, there are 5 or 6 who qualify by edit count waiting for CU on SPI right now. ~Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply whether you have an email address attached to your account or not. This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being done with their data. On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed and any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to provide information to the accused. See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing, where the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would be a violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer of the checkuser. This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before something can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed. Ergo Catch-22 I know checkusers keep a private wiki https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to our privacy policy we are supposed to purge our information regularly (on wiki CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal of private information on the wiki? My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto confirmed to be notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves at any point, and any mentions of themselves on the CU wiki should be retrievable. Perhaps some full disclosure should be made here John. You are a checkuser yourself, have access to the checkuser-L mailing list and the checkuser wiki, helped to set up the Audit Subcommittee on the English Wikipedia (which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on request); you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries mailing list because you are a former arbitrator, a checkuser and an oversighter on enwp. (so have access there to express your concerns or suggest changes in standards), It seems you are complaining about a specific case, and instead of talking things out about this specific case, you've decided to propose an entirely different checkusering standard. I'll point out in passing that half of the spambots blocked in recent weeks by checkusers were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious vandals can hit the autoconfirmed threshold easily on most projects. Full disclosure on my part: I am also an Enwp checkuser and a member of the Arbitration Committee. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and ensuring our privacy more difficult. On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may be done, provided that they are within the limits of the privacy policy. These standards vary widely. So, the correct place to discuss this is on each project. Risker On 13 June 2012 21:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply whether you have an email address attached to your account or not. This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being done with their data. On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed and any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to provide information to the accused. See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing, where the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would be a violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer of the checkuser. This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before something can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed. Ergo Catch-22 I know checkusers keep a private wiki https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to our privacy policy we are supposed to purge our information regularly (on wiki CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal of private information on the wiki? My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto confirmed to be notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves at any point, and any mentions of themselves on the CU wiki should be retrievable. Perhaps some full disclosure should be made here John. You are a checkuser yourself, have access to the checkuser-L mailing list and the checkuser wiki, helped to set up the Audit Subcommittee on the English Wikipedia (which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on request); you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries mailing list because you are a former arbitrator, a checkuser and an oversighter on enwp. (so have access there to express your concerns or suggest changes in standards), It seems you are complaining about a specific case, and instead of talking things out about this specific case, you've decided to propose an entirely different checkusering standard. I'll point out in passing that half of the spambots blocked in recent weeks by checkusers were autoconfirmed on one or more projects, and even obvious vandals can hit the autoconfirmed threshold easily on most projects. Full disclosure on my part: I am also an Enwp checkuser and a member of the Arbitration Committee. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent. As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place. First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured they don't all always agree and there is healthy debate and dialogue. Second, enwp has an audit subcommittee that routinely audits the logs with a fine toothed comb. They are NOT all previous checkusers, to avoid the sort of groupthink that appears to concern you. Then, the WMF has an ombudsman commission, which also may audit with commission from the Board. Those people take their role very seriously. And last, anyone with genuine privacy concerns can contact the WMF: me, Maggie, anyone in the legal or community advocacy department. Is it an iron clad assurance of no misbehavior? Probably not, and we will continue to get better at it: but I will say that in 3 years of being pretty closely involved with that team, I'm impressed with how much they err on the side of protection of privacy. I have a window into their world, and they have my respect. Best, PB --- Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and ensuring our privacy more difficult. On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may be done, provided that they are within the limits of the privacy policy. These standards vary widely. So, the correct place to discuss this is on each project. Risker On 13 June 2012 21:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply whether you have an email address attached to your account or not. This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being done with their data. On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed and any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to provide information to the accused. See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing, where the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would be a violation of the privacy policy to release the time/reason/performer of the checkuser. This screams of obfuscation and the hiding of information. I know the ombudsman committee exists as a check and balance, however before something can be passed to them evidence of inappropriate action is needed. Ergo Catch-22 I know checkusers keep a private wiki https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and I know according to our privacy policy we are supposed to purge our information regularly (on wiki CU logs exist for 90 days) however who oversees the regular removal of private information on the wiki? My proposal would be for all users who are at least auto confirmed to be notified and be able to request all CU logs regarding themselves at any point, and any mentions of themselves on the CU wiki should be retrievable. Perhaps some full disclosure should be made here John. You are a checkuser yourself, have access to the checkuser-L mailing list and the checkuser wiki, helped to set up the Audit Subcommittee on the English Wikipedia (which carries out reviews of checkuser/oversighter actions on request); you are also a member of the English Wikipedia functionaries mailing list because you are a former arbitrator, a checkuser and an oversighter on enwp. (so have access there to express your concerns or suggest changes in standards), It seems you are complaining about a specific case, and instead of talking things out about this specific case, you've decided to propose an entirely different checkusering
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent. As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place. First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured they don't all always agree and there is healthy debate and dialogue. Second, enwp has an audit subcommittee that routinely audits the logs with a fine toothed comb. They are NOT all previous checkusers, to avoid the sort of groupthink that appears to concern you. Then, the WMF has an ombudsman commission, which also may audit with commission from the Board. Those people take their role very seriously. And last, anyone with genuine privacy concerns can contact the WMF: me, Maggie, anyone in the legal or community advocacy department. Is it an iron clad assurance of no misbehavior? Probably not, and we will continue to get better at it: but I will say that in 3 years of being pretty closely involved with that team, I'm impressed with how much they err on the side of protection of privacy. I have a window into their world, and they have my respect. Best, PB --- Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc There is also the Meta checkuser policy; not all policy guidance for checkusers is set locally, they all have to abide by the global policy on checkuser usage (which incorporates by reference the privacy policy). To make an analogy to the health world... In the United States, the privacy and security of health information is governed by the Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act (HIPAA). Part of the act is the requirement that access to health information be auditable, and that an accounting of access to protected information be provided to the person concerned upon request. It's not that far out to suggest that people should be notified when their personally identifying information is accessed on Wikimedia, if we invest that information with the significance that many wish to. To be honest, I'm surprised Risker doesn't agree, given the emphasis on personal privacy demonstrated in the IPv6 thread on this list. Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
To be honest the biggest problem is that releasing this information can hurt quite a lot. It can give away the techniques the checkuser (or checkusers, more then one working together is very common to make sure they're right) used to draw the connections. This is especially true for technical information where it can easily give away 'tell-tale' signs used as part of the determination. Almost every time I've ever seen the information demanded it was quite clear (usually even with out any type of technical information) that the user was guilty as charged and now they just wanted one of those two things: A target (the CU) or the information (to find out where they went wrong). Yes, if a horrible checkuser was checking you you wouldn't know instantly but that's why we have so many checks and balances. Giving all of this information to everyone, especially automatically, would make it almost infinitely harder for checkusers to do their job. James On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:30 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: Risker comment was basically lets not set a global accountability and ability to get CU related logs of our self on a global level, instead take it to each project and fight it out there to me that reeks of obfuscation. Realistically this should be a global policy, just like our privacy policy is. Why shouldnt users know when they have been checkusered and why? On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent. As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place. First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured they don't all always agree and there is healthy debate and dialogue. Second, enwp has an audit subcommittee that routinely audits the logs with a fine toothed comb. They are NOT all previous checkusers, to avoid the sort of groupthink that appears to concern you. Then, the WMF has an ombudsman commission, which also may audit with commission from the Board. Those people take their role very seriously. And last, anyone with genuine privacy concerns can contact the WMF: me, Maggie, anyone in the legal or community advocacy department. Is it an iron clad assurance of no misbehavior? Probably not, and we will continue to get better at it: but I will say that in 3 years of being pretty closely involved with that team, I'm impressed with how much they err on the side of protection of privacy. I have a window into their world, and they have my respect. Best, PB --- Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and ensuring our privacy more difficult. On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may be done, provided that they are within the limits of the privacy policy. These standards vary widely. So, the correct place to discuss this is on each project. Risker On 13 June 2012 21:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply whether you have an email address attached to your account or not. This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being done with their data. On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a period, (say autoconfirmed) they should be notified when they are CU'ed and any user should be able to request the CU logs pertaining to themselves (who CU'ed them, when, and why) at will. I have seen CU's refuse to provide information to the accused. See the Rich Farmbrough ArbCom case where I suspect obvious fishing, where the CU'ed user was requesting information and the CU claimed it would
Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness
I am not asking for checkuser results, rather the basic logs about when/why/who may have checkusered the account. I am not asking CUs to release IP/user-agent/other info, but to let users know that they are being CUed, by whom and why. and to be able to request that historical information from the CU logs On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:54 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.comwrote: To be honest the biggest problem is that releasing this information can hurt quite a lot. It can give away the techniques the checkuser (or checkusers, more then one working together is very common to make sure they're right) used to draw the connections. This is especially true for technical information where it can easily give away 'tell-tale' signs used as part of the determination. Almost every time I've ever seen the information demanded it was quite clear (usually even with out any type of technical information) that the user was guilty as charged and now they just wanted one of those two things: A target (the CU) or the information (to find out where they went wrong). Yes, if a horrible checkuser was checking you you wouldn't know instantly but that's why we have so many checks and balances. Giving all of this information to everyone, especially automatically, would make it almost infinitely harder for checkusers to do their job. James On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:30 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: Risker comment was basically lets not set a global accountability and ability to get CU related logs of our self on a global level, instead take it to each project and fight it out there to me that reeks of obfuscation. Realistically this should be a global policy, just like our privacy policy is. Why shouldnt users know when they have been checkusered and why? On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent. As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place. First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured they don't all always agree and there is healthy debate and dialogue. Second, enwp has an audit subcommittee that routinely audits the logs with a fine toothed comb. They are NOT all previous checkusers, to avoid the sort of groupthink that appears to concern you. Then, the WMF has an ombudsman commission, which also may audit with commission from the Board. Those people take their role very seriously. And last, anyone with genuine privacy concerns can contact the WMF: me, Maggie, anyone in the legal or community advocacy department. Is it an iron clad assurance of no misbehavior? Probably not, and we will continue to get better at it: but I will say that in 3 years of being pretty closely involved with that team, I'm impressed with how much they err on the side of protection of privacy. I have a window into their world, and they have my respect. Best, PB --- Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:17:09 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and ensuring our privacy more difficult. On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may be done, provided that they are within the limits of the privacy policy. These standards vary widely. So, the correct place to discuss this is on each project. Risker On 13 June 2012 21:02, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply whether you have an email address attached to your account or not. This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being done with their data. On Jun 14, 2012 12:35 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are for anons. But for
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?
* Michael Peel wrote: My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be displayed where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article on penis or vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or vagina), but wouldn't be immediately displayed where you wouldn't expect them (e.g. if you want to find information on necklaces made of pearls). Did anyone argue for displaying images where they would not expect them? -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
