Hi!
> Couldn't the stats job you want run on toolserver?
Really, this isn't much of foundation-l issue - we have been
collecting and providing detailed article viewership statistics for
over a year.
People are building various applications on top of that data, like
http://wikirank.com/en/Jim
Couldn't the stats job you want run on toolserver?
Peter Gervai wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I wasn't subscribed to this list, since I usually try to avoid the
> politics around.
>
> I was notified, however, that some interesting claims were made and
> some steps taken (again) without any discussion what
Hi!
> Assuming you're not taking this out of context, please explain the
> difference between how it works and my conception of how it works.
Sorry, I misread your statement. I took "Volunteer admins" as
"Volunteer sysadmins" - my greatest apology.
BR,
Domas
__
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>
>
> And, Brian,
> > Volunteer admins cannot take user privacy into their own hands,
> > under their
> > own interpretation. That's just not how it works!
>
>
> You don't seen to have sufficient understanding how it works. :(
>
>
> Domas
>
As
Hi!
> I believe there was no such claim, if anything, it was pointed out
> that
> setting up the stats engine didn't give access to information that
> was not
> accessible before by the Checkusers (even if logged), and that most
> fears of
> data being handled by the wrong hands are mitigate
Hi!
> Are the developers lawyers?
IANAL.
> A developer claiming something has an
> unwanted privacy issue is very different from making claims about
> something being a legal issue on the behalf of Foundation. Simply
> don't
> do it.
I failed to phrase what I wanted to write you in a way, tha
I'm going off of statements like this:
" I happen to be the one who have created the Hungarian checkuser policy,
which is, as far as I know, the strictest one in WMF projects, and it's no
joke, and I intend to follow it."
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Bence Damokos wrote:
> This might be goi
This might be going off topic, and not really helpful in finding a solution
(along the lines of wamping up WMF stats capabilities in the near future or
reinstating the huwiki solution in a way accpetable to the WMF and the hu.wp
community and possibly benefitting other communities, as well):
On Su
Just to be clear, it has been claimed in this thread that the CheckUser
right also gives those admins the right to collect additional data on users
and analyze it. I've just read the privacy policy and that is not true.
You'll also find [[Privacy policy]] interesting, although you might decide
to
It is a WMF legal issue, in addition to being a social issue. No "claim" is
being made that its a legal issue, it's just a fact.
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 2:43 AM, John at Darkstar wrote:
> Discussing something as a general social concern is one thing, claiming
> that it is a wmf legal issue is som
Discussing something as a general social concern is one thing, claiming
that it is a wmf legal issue is something different.
John
Michael Snow skrev:
> John at Darkstar wrote:
>> Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an
>> unwanted privacy issue is very different from maki
John at Darkstar wrote:
> Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an
> unwanted privacy issue is very different from making claims about
> something being a legal issue on the behalf of Foundation. Simply don't
> do it.
>
Privacy is not simply a legal issue, it's a general
Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an
unwanted privacy issue is very different from making claims about
something being a legal issue on the behalf of Foundation. Simply don't
do it.
John
Brian skrev:
> Or by one of the WMF developers removing the web bug.
>
> 2009/6/6
Or by one of the WMF developers removing the web bug.
2009/6/6 John at Darkstar
> You can make claims about what you yourself wants or believe, but do
> *not* claim that your personal beliefs reflects legal issues for
> Foundation. If Foundation needs to make claims about what is and whats
> not
You can make claims about what you yourself wants or believe, but do
*not* claim that your personal beliefs reflects legal issues for
Foundation. If Foundation needs to make claims about what is and whats
not a legal issue, then such claims should be made by Mike.
John
Brian skrev:
> I also have
The strange thingh is, some such servers seems to be outside discussion
while others are not. ;)
John
Tisza Gergő skrev:
> Nathan writes:
>
>> Others have since discussed more centralised and secure methods for
>> providing these statistics via the WMF - this is the ideal outcome, and one
>> th
* clap - clap *
John
Peter Gervai skrev:
> Hello,
>
> I wasn't subscribed to this list, since I usually try to avoid the
> politics around.
>
> I was notified, however, that some interesting claims were made and
> some steps taken (again) without any discussion whatsoever.
>
> First, let me tel
I also have not seen a clear explanation of what those who would like to
generate statistics using web bugs plan to do with that data. How do they
plan to use the data, and why aren't the plethora of statistics now made
officially available by the WMF not satisfactory?
You have bypassed the correc
This is another e-mail on this subject that just strikes me as flawed. These
are not vague privacy fears - they are real privacy fears. I see a
fundamental failure by those involved in this controversy to understand this
point.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> Robert Rohde w
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Peter Gervai wrote:
>
> >> The community cannot decide that Random_user1
> >> and Random_user2 etc will agree with the communities view on the stats
> being
> >> passed to an external server.
> >
> > As you are
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:
> Just a few sidenotes now.
>
> 2009/6/5 Mark (Markie) :
>
> > There are a few issues with this. Devs have access to logs on WMF
> servers,
> > not random external servers.
>
> This is a good suggestion, basically you say that I should request
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> Aryeh Gregor writes:
>
> > I believe the major problems with the script are
> >
> > 1) It sent data to a server not directly controlled by the Wikimedia
> > Foundation. No personally identifiable information should be sent in
> > bulk to any
I don't think that "any random admin on one of the projects should be able
to insert a web bug into
Common.js" is what he suggests. The Hungarian situation seems to have been
in place with support of the hungarian community, at least at start.
Frankly, I'd rather see private sensitive data on an
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Peter said that he could run whatever was being done on an external
> server on a WMF machine that [core] developers have access to. What
> does this have to do with being Foundation staff?
He is trying rationalize his previous behavior by
Michael Snow writes:
> Maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but I read those comments primarily as
> a defense against a perceived "prosecution" for allegedly violating the
> privacy policy.
I don't read them that way - rather as saying "This isn't clearly in
violation; it has been working for a long
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> Tisza Gergő writes:
>> I do argue that it is not in violation of the privacy policy (whether
>> the people here find it acceptable is another question).
>
> Just to make it clear, I don't think accordance with the privacy policy
> automatically
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Peter Gervai wrote:
>> The community cannot decide that Random_user1
>> and Random_user2 etc will agree with the communities view on the stats being
>> passed to an external server.
>
> As you are aware it's not really random user, so what you write is
> more rhetor
This argument - which is effectively that community members should be
considered Wikimedia Foundation staff members - is very brittle. It is
neither sound nor valid. Do yourself a favor and consider the logic of the
other side. It will save you from confusion later when you realize that you
were th
Just a few sidenotes now.
2009/6/5 Mark (Markie) :
> There are a few issues with this. Devs have access to logs on WMF servers,
> not random external servers.
This is a good suggestion, basically you say that I should request the
foundation to provide me a server inside WMF with developer acces
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Snow 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:
>
>
> And so did Tisza Gergő:
>
Maybe it's ju
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> I do argue that it is not in violation of the privacy policy (whether the
> people
> here find it acceptable is another question).
It may be within the letter of the privacy policy. I think that's
entirely arguable, since the policy is so vagu
Michael Snow writes:
> As I understand it, nobody is arguing that it's considered acceptable at
> this point. People involved in the Hungarian Wikipedia have been
> explaining the background, trying to establish that they shouldn't be
> blamed for having this in place. That's understandable as
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> Mark (Markie writes:
>
> > I still fail to see how, at this point (not before when there was no
> policy)
> > this can be considered to be acceptable. IP information etc is still
> being
> > passed to an external server, regardless of who it
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Snow 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
Apologies for this, I'm getting confused between multiple threads on this.
Regards
Mark
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Mark (Markie) wrote:
> > I still fail to see how, at this point (not before when there was no
> policy)
> > this can be considered to be acceptable.
> A
Mark (Markie) wrote:
> I still fail to see how, at this point (not before when there was no policy)
> this can be considered to be acceptable.
As I understand it, nobody is arguing that it's considered acceptable at
this point. People involved in the Hungarian Wikipedia have been
explaining the b
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> Bence Damokos writes:
>
> > I'd like to note in the interest of facts that the Huwp stats have been
> > implemented (without complaint till now, June 2009) since October 2006;
> the
> > current version of the privacy policy has been available
And that without any complain from 2005 onward (practically from the
beginning of huwiki's real existence).
B.
-Original Message-
It is linked from the statistics page and other relevant places, not exactly
a secret.)
__ ESET Smart Security - Vírusdefiníciós adatbázis: 4134
effe iets anders wrote:
> 2009/6/5 Peter Gervai
>
>>
>> The stats (which have, by surprise, a dedicated domain under th hu
>> wikipedia domain) runs on a dedicated server, with nothing else on it.
>> Its sole purpose to gather and publish the stats. Basically nobody
>> have permission to log in
2009/6/5 Peter Gervai
>
> The stats (which have, by surprise, a dedicated domain under th hu
> wikipedia domain) runs on a dedicated server, with nothing else on it.
> Its sole purpose to gather and publish the stats. Basically nobody
> have permission to log in the servers but me, and I since I
I'd like to note in the interest of facts that the Huwp stats have been
implemented (without complaint till now, June 2009) since October 2006; the
current version of the privacy policy has been available in English since
October 2008.
I think it might not be very productive to judge the action of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathan wrote:
> I can understand your frustration, Peter, but perhaps hu.wp could also have
> taken a more collaborative approach. If you would like to use a method for
> collecting statistics that others will view as violating the privacy policy,
> or
I can understand your frustration, Peter, but perhaps hu.wp could also have
taken a more collaborative approach. If you would like to use a method for
collecting statistics that others will view as violating the privacy policy,
or as presenting risks normally not considered throughout the rest of t
Hello,
I wasn't subscribed to this list, since I usually try to avoid the
politics around.
I was notified, however, that some interesting claims were made and
some steps taken (again) without any discussion whatsoever.
First, let me tell it here again - as I have told it on a different
list - th
44 matches
Mail list logo
