Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[FT2]

I don't think we get to make grand claims about what "the vast majority"
think, without some good basis for it.

More pragmatically, I suspect that most editors think of themselves as
Wikipedia/other project *editors*.  But those who truly think of themselves
as members of a *movement* - our GLAM volunteers, our regional/country
bodies, volunteers in outreach and universities, editors and others who
truly see themselves as members of a movement and not just editors of
knowledge - probably don't think of it in terms of "only limited to
Wikipedia", but in far broader terms - and if they don't, then we might
want to gently suggest that broader vision to them and not just concur that
it's limited in that way.


On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 07:32, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >
> > You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".
> >
> >
> I suggest that this claimed impossibility is in fact exactly what the vast
> majority of the volunteers believe that they are.
>
> JPS
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[FT2]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos  wrote:

> One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product
> would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the
> leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
> as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
> after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
> movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
> of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
>

Yes. You can't be a member of "The Wikipedia Movement".

(And if you could, you'd exclude all other projects + scope from the
movement and erase the breadth that gives life to it. )

FT2
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

[FT2]

I agree with both views expressed (the desirability of, and concerns about,
the Foundation name/brand), and I suggest a solution that might work for
both problems.

One the one hand, Wikimedia vs Wikipedia is confusing and Wikimedia is
little recognized. I'm not actually sure if that's a problem, because the
Foundation is only public facing in contexts where people will be fine with
that name (donations campaign, approaching 3rd parties for projects).

So do we actually have a problem? For example, do we really believe that
renaming the Foundation will actually increase donations or add to any
joint projects in a material way, or is this just that the Foundation
should have a widely recognised name but not a real problem if not?

Calling the entire foundation "The Wikipedia Foundation" enhances one (best
known) project but at the cost of marginalizing all others. Most of my work
is at Wikipedia but even so, I don't think that's a good thing at all,
other projects need a higher profile if anything, not more in Wikipedia's
shadow.  Also it narrows our focus as a project because now our entire
project name is just limited to Wikipedia, hampering our efforts to place
other projects at the "front of the stage" or make them big things. I don't
like that outcome at all.  Also it would be much harder to keep foundation
and community with their separate roles and identities, too much risk of
"blurring".  Those are real harms.

I agree a name change could have benefits, but if done, it must build on
(and "cap") all projects, not just "step into Wikipedia's shoes" only.

How about "The Wiki Knowledge Foundation"? Perhaps styled as "The
WikiKnowledge Foundation"?


   - It follows the naming pattern of * all * projects (Wikipedia,
   WikiNews, WikiCommons, WikiSource ... WikiKnowledge?)
   - It reflects the common aim of * all * projects
   - It keeps the "Wiki" part which is what has recognition beyond all, and
   is clearly distinct from "Wikipedia", but is not confusing, because it's
   clear what it means.
   - "Knowledge" is sufficiently broad that we would probably never have a
   project with that name.
   - There doesn't seem to be an active website with "wikiknowledge", so
   perhaps there's no risk of complaint is the name is used.  As a domain, "
   wikiknowledge-foundation.org" seems to be OK.


If that doesn't work , there are countless variants that might work - wiki
learning foundation, wiki information foundation, wiki projects foundation
for example.

FT2


On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 19:54, Pharos  wrote:

> I concur with Phoebe and others that the time for such a change was 10 or
> 15 years ago, and would not be appropriate or productive now.
>
> One thing that this corporate rebranding after our most popular product
> would erase is the "Wikimedia movement" - a social movement that is the
> leading modern manifestation of the Free Culture movement that attracted me
> as a member of Student For Free Culture a decade ago.  Rebranding ourselves
> after a mere product is in some ways an erasure of the underlying social
> movement.  When one is part of the "Wikipedia movement", one is just a user
> of a specific website, and it sounds as empty as the "Facebook movement".
>
> That said, I do agree with common-sense changes like WikiCommons and
> perhaps others.  But I don't think that just because we have more money
> now, and maybe it would have been a good idea 10 years ago, that corporate
> rebranding around our most popular product is a good thing to do at this
> stage in the evolution of our movement.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When I joined Wikimedia in 2009 I also tried WikiNews, which looked yet
> > another fantastic Wikimedia project. I soon realized, however, that it
> was
> > just a repeater of CC-BY sources of news, with very residual (if any)
> > proper production. When an handcrafted news-piece I've made was merged
> with
> > one of those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked
> > back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to
> > congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the
> Portuguese
> > version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that
> > was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the
> > thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that
> project
> > at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire
> > yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic
> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia and the politics of encryption

[FT2]

There are many very sane comments in this thread.  I agree with most of
them -

   - Network encryption is important as one aspect;
   - "Local" threats and "digging dirt" are an important realistic threat
   (far more people are of interest to *THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES* vs nationally,
   or open to so many types of harm - defamation, humiliation, "Lulz");
   - Moving to https and forcing a serious look at technical implications
   and needed workarounds is a strong argument;
   - Asking those affected is a strong argument;
   - We are a global presence, so our stance, its strength, its
   "rightness", and the signal we send, are crucial.

With all respect to local editors, whose position I wish were better, there
is more at stake in Chinese and other affected Wikipedias, than China.
There are questions of internet/freedom/privacy-related beliefs, policies,
and directions -- what one might describe as the battleground for "privacy
of thought vs. state right to monitor thought". That is what it comes to,
whether now, or in 5 or 15 years.

I'm reminded of public reaction years back, to Google, when as a condition
of entry to China it agreed to filter its results. Part of the logic was
"better partial information and presence than none".  Did it help Google's
efforts in China? It was seen by many outside as a betrayal. Google had to
leave eventually. Are there lessons we should consider from others who have
tried different approaches in these countries?

I see no reason to believe that state oversight and interception will be
benevolent institutions - and would disregard assurances that they are
designed as such. History teaches over and again that fallibility and
expansion of power is the more usual rule, and good intentions easily turn
to dark uses. To take a simple scenario and how we are affected, if passage
of time and public indifference endorses states being "usually" able to
watch what one studies and writes on, how long before immigration, access
to medical or welfare services, legal rights, marginalization, 'staged'
crimes, targeting, accusations of sedition or "anti-state activity", and so
on, become informed by (among other things) a standard government lookup by
state authorities and law enforcement, of one's Wikipedia (or other online)
accesses, and negative interpretations of what those may "mean"? Self
censorship is a grave possibility, and will encroach from the edges.

To give specific examples, take a Western visitor to Russia who once 8
years ago edited a Wikipedia article adding a note on homosexuality policy
in a school or a legal case in a county. There is no expectation that a
state body would not save all data they can and even in US law a URL is
probably metadata and has no right of privacy. When immigration routinely
obtains visitors' names 72 hours in advance (as some countries expect and
others may demand as a norm) won't they at some time turn around and ask as
part of that process, what is known of possible visitors, and annotate
their immigration records with "Edits pro-jewish topics" or "Seems to
support homosexuality"? Perhaps editors on contentious topics (drugs,
abortion, religion) will have these noted by immigration and less ethical
law enforcement bodies seeking visitors to target, if editing or reading
patterns become easily accessible. The same goes double for editors
attempting to uphold NPOV in countries where this is a risk, and the act of
simply toning down articles that contain inappropriately POV tone in
locally controversial articles may put one at risk.

Twitter and Facebook may show ones daily life, but Wikipedia editing and
page reads show what one sees as areas of interest to inform others, and
areas to be informed oneself. There are workarounds but we can't simply say
"people should know" or "if they are at risk they shouldn't edit". That's
not sustainable.

While this isn't explicitly "known" to happen yet in the US or UK, I
suggest that it's likely to be a logical step round the corner, worldwide,
where state bodies seek to know in advance more about individuals, and
individuals screen and self-censor in response. We need that not to become
a habit, or NPOV can be kissed goodbye.

The profound and poignant comment appeared in one media report a month ago,
that people like Merkel do act as strong advocates of privacy precisely
because - *unlike* US and UK citizens - they have actually lived under the
Stasi. They know what a file on every person, or state access to innermost
and private thoughts "for the common good" truly means for a country.
We probably do need to do what we can to afford a safe ecosphere, as our
whole endeavor depends on it and we have the position to make that point.
It may be difficult, but we probably have a good call for discuss

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

[FT2]

that you have been de-authorized for a website, unless an IP block can also*
*identify or legally indicate a specific individual.  I might be blocked on
a website for something I would never imagine to be a targeted block -
being the 5000th user, or using caps in my signature, and a particularly
hard-ass site admin. An intermediate router or DNS fault. Too many HTTP
requests in an hour. A browser agent string issue.

Rhetorical claims ("you'd know", "you ought to know") can't always
hold.  Example:
Suppose without knowing it and without advising me, Wikimedia blocked all
versions of Internet Explorer 6 (a known old problematic version) and I
tear my hair out, then try IE9 or Firefox instead, have I "circumvented" a
block? Or was it my browser version and not me that was blocked? What if I
find my current IE10 browser is blocked, can I know if switching to Chrome
would be a crime?  (What if I don't change my IP but I configure the user
agent so IE6 isn't blocked because it presents as IE8 or it's using
compatibility mode or strict mode?) There's little certainty of *having to
be *clear cut on what inability to reach a site means.

*Looking the other way at legal implications*, do internet users have a
specific legal obligation to ask why they cannot reach a website, when that
is the case, *in case by chance* it might be a block of a specific user,
and furthermore a block applying to themself specifically? Are they
negligent, wilful or reckless if they fail to do so, or if they just
rebooted their router to get a new IP ("because that's what the ISP says")?


FT2


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder 
> wrote:
> >> http://feedly.com/k/14WeLcY
> >>
> >> I wish I was grossly misrepresenting the situation here. If I am, please
> >> do
> >> set me straight.
> >
> > You're not wrong, but getting the attention of a federal prosecutor would
> > be easier for jaywalking in a National Park. It applies only to extreme
> > situations.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
>
> I think you misread this, Fred. The case (Craigslist v. 3taps) is a
> private entity suing another[1] for relief from violations of the
> CFAA[2], and the article is about a recent ruling in that case.[3] The
> Wikimedia analog might be the WMF suing Grawp (or similar) for
> repeated violations of technological barriers (and other means) of
> revoking access to the site. The ruling seems to establish that
> Wikimedia is entitled to legally revoke access on a case by case
> basis, and that an IP ban is a sufficient technological barrier to
> meet the standard. At least that is the apparent state of the law in
> the Northern District of California, which incidentally includes San
> Francisco (and the WMF).
>
> [1]:
> http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/100933709?extension=pdf&from=embed
> [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
> [3]:
> http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-Denying-Renewed-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moving forward: a proposal (Re: Community/WMF)

[FT2]

Afterthought x 3:

   - WMF and its staff should probably have an explicit understanding that
   they often need to bend for community approaches and collaboration, and
   expectations (rather than the other way round).

   *Rationale: -* WMF needs to ensure that staff know "good ways" to work
   with the community.  It's not symmetrical:  a legal body can have
   meetings and executive decisions, and everyone understands how they work
   and their meaning. But the community doesn't have that kind of process and
   resists being shoehorned if its own (inchoate) ways are not respected.
   Community expectations probably include transparency, deliberation, and
   "expectation management", ie no (unpleasant+sudden) surprises. Most people
   know this but somehow it failed here.  That was avoidable. Community
   expectations are nowhere summarized, nor how to meet them, nor what we *
   collectively* feel should happen when faced with a "WMF decision that
   someone feels must be done". If it can be perceived as lapsed or breached
   this easily *despite* staff awareness, then we need to set it out, not
   assume it, for all our good.

   - The community needs to appreciate that WMF sometimes has to make these
   decisions. A mature appreciation of WMF role and position would include
   agreement if possible that the need can arise, which kinds of issues might
   appropriately need a unilateral decision, and how it should take place. We
   should agree some kind of reliable guidance however short to say what WMF
   staff can do or might be expected to have tried doing, and what's needed in
   communication or action to minimize any discord.

   - Last, even if there had been transparency and consultation in the
   recent matter, there is still a sense by some volunteers that the "done
   deal" element was in its own right, inappropriate or inept. So transparency
   and consultation alone may not be all that's needed. What else is needed
   probably ought to be worked out on Meta so it isn't just limited to list
   subscribers.


FT2
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Moving forward: a proposal (Re: Community/WMF)

[FT2]

I've started a new thread to step back from the long thread, and look
forward towards something that I think we need - or might want - to do.

This is not at all the first time of clumsy handling, or conflicting
actions and perceptions, leading to tensions and drama between the editing
community and foundation. There are some common themes.

As noted by Sue and others, WMF and the community may have different
low-level priorities and motivators. They have a different structure and
legal context. There are different scales and kinds of consequences
possible. Even when contemplating the same issue, the processes and input
of both may be equally valid but diverge a lot. Last, even when a WMF
matter is valid or chosen diligently, the communication aspects of
transparency, consultation, and mutual respect can be missing, and it may
be perceived as very or grossly inappropriate or a breach of unspoken
etiquette.

*This has added heat and fuel to many incidents over many years. Not just
one or a few matters. It benefits nobody that we give no guidance to reduce
or (if able) avoid these confrontations in future, and no one part of the
wider Community can draft such guidance in isolation.  *I think it's time
we addressed it head on.

I would like to call on WMF and the Community (in its broadest sense) to
set out terms, and organize, a formal consultation, to answer these
questions:


   1. *What expectations and needs do the Volunteer Community, Chapters,
   and WMF, have of each other?*

   2. *What guidance and guidelines can we agree upon*, that can be given
   to new staff at WMF/Chapters, or referenced by anyone in the Movement, to
   understand how to recognize and deal with situations that may impinge on
   other parts of the Movement?

   3. *In particular, what best practices or necessities can be outlined
   for someone* wishing to broach, consult, and progress an proposal or
   action that may be seen as "unexpected" by a subset of the Movement, and,
   if there must for operational/legal purposes be a "done deal", how do we
   collectively concur these (hopefully uncommon) cases should be approved,
   handled, and discussed/communicated?


I would like the outcome to be a *living document*, like any other major
policy, that can be used to *understand how to reduce friction*, and *"best
practices" and understandings of viewpoints, within different parts of our
Movement*, and thereby ensuring everyone involved is more aware of these
aspects and of "best practices" in working with other areas and "subgroups"
in our Community.

I'd note that policies often contain nuances and don't always imply a
single fixed answer exists. Their aim is to reduce the areas of discord,
even if it can't be eliminated, by outlining what is mandatory, or
preferred, or good practice, or unacceptable, or may be important to know.
I see the result as being a policy of that kind.

I'd note also that although mainly considering WMF and the volunteer
community, it's worth addressing broadly, because other movement
"subgroups" can also have internal decisions capable of this kind of
problem. For example, and in principle, OTRS administrators might one day
make a unilateral decision to limit or alter some aspect of how OTRS and
its team operates, a chapter might make a clumsy or ill-conceived choice
affecting WMF or editorial aspects in a given country, or a
computer/data/system administrator may make a decision about computer
matters, as well. There may be useful guidance applicable to others in the
movement.


FT2
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Aaron Swartz is dead

[FT2]

A few posts if anyone here's not aware of Aaron  (see also his Wikipedia
bio)

   -
   
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/technology/aaron-swartz-internet-activist-dies-at-26.html
   - http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/verysick - Aaron's blog post on himself
   - http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully - by
   Lawrence Lessig
   -
   
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/01/academic-libraries/many-jstor-journal-archives-now-free-to-public-
3 days ago


FT2


On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Kat Walsh  wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 4:04 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > Killed himself.
> >
> > http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N61/swartz.html
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
>
>
> Oh, Aaron. I remember meeting him, after reading some of his writing, and
> being surprised to find the person behind the mental voice, introverted and
> thoughtful and a little awkward, in contrast to the boldness of his blog.
>
> I considered him a friend, though I wish I'd known him better; I remember
> talking to him, often in a smaller gathering of nerds after some conference
> or event, about copyright, the open web, Wikipedia, social structures, and
> usually about some problem or another that existed in the world. And unlike
> almost anyone else, a short time later Aaron would have founded an
> organization or taken on some big project or pulled some crazy stunt to try
> to fix that problem, because that's just what he did. And sometimes he
> succeeded.
>
> What a huge loss.
>
> -Kat
>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] IPv4 close to end of road for RIPE,

[FT2]

General info for anyone who wants.

Not that new, announced imminent a week ago or so. (Also apparently not the
first, APNIC hit this point last year)


http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/last-8-phases

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9543870/Internet-IPv4-address-system-hits-its-limit.html

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/09/ripe-warn-eu-and-uk-supply-of-ipv4-internet-addresses-to-run-out-next-month.html


Availability graph:
http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph


FT2
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[FT2]

It would probably be hard to sustain a claim of deceit.  As best I can
tell, long before any wider discussion, all roles were clear or known.  The
email cited by IB clearly itself attempts to ensure roles and principals
are not mistaken.

The test of deceit would be whether persons who are or have considered
changing where they write, testify that *they only made that decision* due
to being misled as to who was affiliated with or representing whom, *and
that* knowing that now, they would wish not to change hosts.

But even that doesn't help IB because the easy answer is, Wikitravel is not
discontinued by their action, so a person wishing to continue editing there
is freely able to do so. The only people who will leave are precisely those
members of the public who - knowing all the facts now known - *still* wish
to do so.  In which case they either were not deceived or any purported
deceit has not changed their course of action.

Individual authors, not IB, have a course of action.  IB the legal entity
was not deceived as to representatives nor was any misrepresentation
directed at IB.   Indeed, I doubt that any purported misrepresentation is
capable of having affected IB in a legal sense.  (Tautologically so: -
those who might feel they were misled will stay anyway now they know "the
truth", those leaving regardless clearly either did not feel misled or else
were unaffected by any claimed misrepresentation as they wish to leave even
knowing "the truth", IB has the ability to communicate to all affected any
alleged misrepresentations so they can enjoy this choice)

FT2



On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Thomas Morton <
morton.tho...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 12 September 2012 12:34, FT2  wrote:
> > The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend
> to
> > be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to
> > be), but that's not alleged here.  "Who was involved with whom" and
> > relationships between those involved were unambiguous by the sound of it.
> > (It is hard to imagine any of the individuals now complaining "I wouldn't
> > have done/agreed that if I'd known who you really were/really
> represented")
> >
> >
>
> As to your second point; they explicitly make this allegation in the
> filing.
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[FT2]

*@Nemo:  *IB haven't claimed an IB insider broke their contract with IB in
any of this.
Agree "+1" as well :)

*@Tom:*  Case law is all about analogous situations so these matter very
much.
The side-suggestion you make is more about tortious deception (I pretend to
be an employee or official representative of someone, or pretend not to
be), but that's not alleged here.  "Who was involved with whom" and
relationships between those involved were unambiguous by the sound of it.
(It is hard to imagine any of the individuals now complaining "I wouldn't
have done/agreed that if I'd known who you really were/really represented")

FT2

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:

> FT2, 12/09/2012 13:09:
>
>> 2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty.
>>
>> Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was
>> involved.
>>
>
> Nobody except IB of course.
>
>
>
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Thomas Morton <
morton.tho...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Of course; if a member of the local Muslim community put on a fake uniform
> for the shop in question, and stood outside handing out leaflets about the
> better place... that would be a problem.
>
> This is what IB appear to be alleging.
>
> All of these metaphor, however, are very interesting; but not really utile
> in advancing the discussion. We can all think up varying metaphors to
> support our points - fortunately courts do not rely on metaphors :)
>
> Tom
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[FT2]

To tackle both these at once:

*@Deryck Chan, three trivial rebuttals: *

   1. WT's "mission" is stated clearly, "*Wikitravel is a project to create
   a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide".*  I
   don't see any of the parties that are proposing or wishing to fork, not
   endorsing that goal thoroughly. They are merely stating they wish to pursue
   that goal on a different website, under different hosting behavior.
   2. The TOU you cite state that WT is a "built in collaboration by
   Wikitravellers from around the globe", not a site "built in collaboration
   with IB". The consensus policy speaks to collaboration between members of
   the public writing, and its pages show that the community did not consider
   IB to have a heightened right to declare itself "the community" or "the
   party obtaining mandatory agreement" in that collaboration. The initial
   legal agreement (I gather) says as much.  There is no evidence that WT'ers
   were not willing to collaborate with WT'ers, as the policy states. Rather,
   WT'ers did not like the hosting service IB provided, or felt they could
   obtain better, which is completely separate.
   3. At the worst to use your own logic against itself, the departing
   WTers did indeed use the service while they felt able to follow the TOU you
   cite.  When they realised they did not feel like collaborating, they did as
   it required - indeed demanded or asked they do - namely departed. And used
   their right to reinstate their CC content at the new host of their
   choosing, following discussion. Others had done so previously, and
   individuals had departed not en masse due to IB before. No WTer is forced
   to leave, or impeded in freewill.


*@Nemo:*
In fact AFAIK, this is legal
too<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_billboard>.


   1. If a supermarket, for example, unreliably stocks Hallal food,
   garnering numerous complains over the years, and a person who shops at a
   competitor contacts or is contacted by members of the local Muslim
   community, or puts members of the community in touch with that other
   vendor, on the basis they provide a wider range of Hallal food of the types
   complained about, and at a better price, and as a result a number of local
   community members agree in social discussions that many of them feel like
   switching to shop at the other store. This is completely normal and legal,
   and happens every day.
   2. A clerk is an employee with a contractual obligation of loyalty.
   Nobody is suggesting that is the case here, or an IB staffer was involved.


FT2


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Deryck Chan wrote:

> One possibility lies within their terms of use:
> "If you're not interested in our goals, or if you agree with our goals but
> refuse to collaborate, compromise, reach
> consensus<http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Consensus>or make
> concessions with other Wikitravellers, we ask that you not use this
> Web service. If you continue to use the service against our wishes, we
> reserve the right to use whatever means available -- technical or legal --
> to prevent you from disrupting our work together."
>
> The goals page (http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:Goals_and_non-goals)
> does imply the goal of making Wikitravel the travel guide, not just a
> travel guide. It is therefore possible to make a case against the
> fork-enthusiasts, and James in particular because he spent more time on
> Wikitravel preparing the fork than actually improving Wikitravel, that
> they're violating the Wikitravel terms of use in some fringe way, which is
> a form of breach of contract.
>
>
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
>
> Actually, a fairer representation of what IB claims is that the "members
> of the public" are free to choose where to drink their beer, but someone
> with a "Pub X" cap in front of "Pub X" stopped all passing people and
> regulars that "Pub X" was renovating and to go to the new location "Pub Xb"
> across the street instead. Or that a clerk of "Y bookshop" used the list of
> all its customers and its official letter papers to mail them saying to
> send their next mail orders to the new postal address of "Yb bookshop".
> Surely it's not trivial to prove, so to say...
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Seeks Declaratory Relief in response to Legal Threats from Internet Brands

[FT2]

The more interesting legal line:

1) Does IB believe there is a legal basis that members of the public (in
the absence of contractual obligation) cannot consider where they and their
fellow hobbyists want to engage in a hobbyisyt activity, be it drinking
beer, discussing philosophy, playing cards, or writing online information?

2) Does IB believe it is tortious to discuss or offer a service to members
of the public, or for a member of the public to suggest to other
potentially interested members of the public, that a different venue or
provider of services might please them more than their present one?

3) Is IB aware of any litigation based upon that very novel theory? For
example,



   - In the commercial world, does case law suggest it is tortious for
   Apple to either target PC users, or suggest PC users might prefer a Mac, or
   a store to state they price compare and are cheaper than another store, or
   a conference centre to state it has facilities better suited than a
   competitor for the needs of an inquirer and their peers?
   - In the social world does case law suggest it is tortious for a member
   of a tennis-playing peer group to suggest that in light of changed rules at
   the current venue a different venue might be better, or to propose to
   explore moving the tennis club to play at that venue?
   - Can you sue users of your bar (absent a contract) to force them to
   continue using your bar if you hear them planning to shoot pool elsewhere?

This would be very odd, and novel.


In short, IB's problem is it conceived WT's content, and the community
writing WT, and the WT site/brand, as its possessions, but the first two
are not.

FT2




On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> On 09/11/12 4:29 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
>> No comment on whether they *can* prove this as I haven't seen the email in
>> question, or the other evidence. But on the face of it there may be some
>> case to answer. A response from the defendants may clear up the matter.
>>
>> Seeing as the intent is to replace IB's as the host of the main travel
>> site
>> wiki then I think IB is justified in defending their position if they
>> believe they have been unfairly undermined. I do disapprove of doing it
>> via
>> lawsuits though (they could e.g. just import WT...).
>>
>>
>>  I heartily congratulate the two volunteers for being sued.
>
> Going through the courts with this will certainly be welcome because of
> the legal points that will be clarified.
>
> It will be interesting to see how they will show that someone has
> "tortuously" caused injury. (Para 1).
>
> Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a
> party to it?
>
> Relief point 2(a) is interesting. In some cases a reference to Travelwiki
> may be necessary to fulfill the requirements of the CC-BY licence.
>
> Ray
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<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] Wikimedia Travel Guide: Board statement

[FT2]

Academic yes, however it's "noise" in their claim.

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 8:36 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> > On 9 September 2012 12:25, FT2  wrote:
> >
> All a bit academic in any case - IB didn't sue over the cc-by content
> and even acknowledged it can be reused. If they were to try to sue,
> they would have a pretty high standing hurdle to overcome given they
> don't own any of the content.
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Travel Guide: Board statement

[FT2]

Actually the answer seems simple.

Whatever the IB site publicly displays and requires, we can observe what IB
considers adequate, plus the attribution requirements of CC-by-SA and any
non-conflicting wikitravel reuse terms and attribution to the site itself
if needed.

We may do more (add diffs and other authors where omitted, link to an
explanatory page), but whatever information IB provides, if we show at
least the attribution information visible in IB's own public pages, it
would inherently be hard for IB to sustain a claim of any fork inadequately
attributing original authors.

Also attribution of "wikitravel" or "IB" itself is not a barrier.
It doesn't provides any assistance to IB in terms of their presumed goal of
preventing forking. It is trivial to meet any sane and legally necesary
acknowledgement of wikitravel.com and/or IB, once IB stipulate (as they
inevitably must) the attribution they feel to be acceptable and its legal
basis.

Beyond that the rest is a matter for, 1/ the wikitravel community such as
care to speak on it, and 2/ any minimum attribution the wikimedia community
or the Foundation might feel is needed for best practice or license
compliance.  It may be possible in a number of ways but I'm sure a
satisfactory agreement would not involve IB-style litigatory approaches.

FT2



On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:11 PM, emijrp  wrote:
> > When we use 1911 Britannica texts, we only attribute to the encyclopedia,
> > not its authors, so we can put "This text comes from Wikitravel".
> >
> > Anyway, if we are going to use Wikitravel texts, writing a script to
> scrape
> > just the usernames from histories is trivial
> > http://wikitravel.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=Kaprun&action=history
> >
>
> That's not really accurate, and not how Wikimedia projects expect to
> be credited either. "Wikipedia" or "Wikitravel" are not the authors of
> any project content (other than, for Wikitravel, that written by
> employees in the course of their employment).
>
> ___
> 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] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[FT2]

ot;No strings" and later
make demands - see above, giving does not imply indifference and doesn't
exclude the right to say "we see a problem here, please don't let that
problem happen".  It *isn't* that we are hosting a giant volunteer party
and noticing some goods brought to be given away are stolen and we want to
ensure that can continue - we have rigorous standards and there's no
evidence people want to have looser ones or turn a blind eye to breaches.

Your stated issues so far - that something was given and later had
conditions added, or stolen material is covertly desired to be usable -
really dont stack up. What I *_think_* your *real** *issue is, is that you
feel the impact of SOPA/PIPA was exaggerated and it would not have had the
stated effects, and you feel the natural and rightful concern of community
members to protect freedoms and free speech and user-created sites, was
manipulated or given "spin" to motivate action which protected rights that
(in your view) werent at risk in the ways suggested.  In the worst case
scenario, you suggest such manipulation, or spin, was driven by large
internet businesses and their links to WMF.

So maybe your *real *question is, were the legal analysis and the proposed
fears, significant/realistic, or were they manipulated, spun, and "sold" to
community members. That's a fair question.  *If the analysis was
valid*then the community acted in good faith and with good reason.
*If the analysis was invalid* then the community acted in good faith but
was "sold" the idea on false or exaggerated grounds, perhaps to benefit
others' business (in your suggestion).  It comes down to the validity of
legal analysis.

What is *not *fair is suggesting *the protests by mass Wikimedians* was
somehow intended either to support theft, or to impose demands related to
material understood to ave been freely gifted with no strings.

If that's close, then can you comment so far and we'll carry on.


 FT2

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> I am afraid that is not how it feels at all. It's more like organising a
> giant volunteer effort to provide a market stall handing out free sweets
> and cakes for anyone who wants some. The stall is very popular, and many
> people chip in, bringing in cakes they've baked and candy they've made. And
> some bring in stuff they've stolen from factories and supermarkets.
>
> Then someone suggests there should be a law against handing out stolen
> goods, like apple pies that still have "Mr. Kipling's Exceedingly Good
> Apple Pies" written on the wrapper. At that point, the popular market stall
> says, "We couldn't possibly continue to hand out free sweets if you pass a
> law like that. We'd have to shut down, because some of our sweets are
> stolen. And just so you know what that would feel like, we're not opening
> the stall today."
>
> So now you assume that everyone who baked their own cakes and brought them
> in is against laws that forbid stealing. And you're leveraging the goodwill
> these people have created to enable theft. And you're misrepresenting what
> the law would mean to the operation of the market stall: because all that
> would be required is that if you see a Mr. Kipling label on a wrapper, you
> don't hand that over to a visitor. And later it transpires that your market
> stall has come to be funded by a very large organisation that stands to
> profit from lax laws against theft, to the tune of tens of billions of
> dollars ...
>
> One clincher for me was Tim Starling's e-mail the other day, about how the
> community were ... let's say "misinformed", to put it politely, about what
> SOPA would have meant for Wikipedia:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-July/121092.html
>
> Man, I wish this organisation had an annual budget of $2 million rather
> than $20 million again, like it did five or six years ago. It had ethical
> problems then, what with Essjay and Carolyn and so forth, but there was at
> least a *plausible* semblance of innocence about the effort. That has well
> and truly been lost.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:00 AM, FT2  wrote:
>
> > There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different
> > meanings.
> >
> > The community - who are the ones ultimately "making the gift" do so
> > altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's
> not
> > the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration.
> > Attribution (CC-by-SA/GFDL) is one form of consideration. The offer of
> this
> > knowledge by editors has quite specific terms that we expect to be met in
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[FT2]

There's a fallacy going on here - ie a term with two subtly different
meanings.

The community - who are the ones ultimately "making the gift" do so
altruistically, in the sense of not seeking *compensation*, but that's not
the same as not expecting *consideration*. We do expect consideration.
Attribution (CC-by-SA/GFDL) is one form of consideration. The offer of this
knowledge by editors has quite specific terms that we expect to be met in
return by the world at large, which is the meaning of consideration.

The offer of that knowledge, and its gifting, also doesn't imply *
indifference*. This is more subtle, and arises because we aren't donating
our time and effort into a void. We are donating as a result of, and often
to benefit, things we believe in, such as helping others or free
knowledge.  There is an implied expectation (by some, perhaps not by
others) that it will be treated with respect and used to further humanity.

This kind of expectation isn't contractual, but it's there anyway. It's the
same kind of expectation that says you would probably be upset , if you
spend a week trying to find something as a special gift for me, and I
respond by flushing it down the toilet and saying "well you gave it to me
so why are you upset what I do with my property?" It might be legally true,
perhaps technically true, but it's certainly not socially and perhaps not
morally true.

We donate time, effort and sometimes money, and we are not indifferent to
whether those are supporting things we believe in. We donate for free
knowledge and humanity, and do so because we care about free knowledge and
humanity. Sometimes we say *"Look, we care about these things enough that
we put this effort in, you care enough to support and appreciate us putting
this effort in, so please listen when we say that something is harming the
ecosystem within which that effort is placed"*. That is completely ethical
and appropriate; no less than a wildlife volunteer who cares for dolphins
pointing out things that harm dolphins or any other ecosystem that one
might care for and try to support by nurturing it over time. Very few
people throw sustained effort or money into a vacuum without any care
whether it grows or dies.


FT2


On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply resent my
> work in Wikipedia being leveraged to that political end.
>
> And I deeply resent Jimbo's statements to the BBC today*, about how "We
> gave you Wikipedia and we didn't have to, and so you might want to listen
> to what we have to tell you".
>
> A gift is either made altruistically, without strings attached, or it
> isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand consideration
> in return for what has been given is disgusting.
>
>
> * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19104494
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A task list for a beginning project

[FT2]

A bot that can be given a list of the important templates, or categories of
templates, would be good for starting a new project. Once articles exist,
at least some meaning comes through and it's more likely people will edit
them.

(Machine translations would be nice too, but realistically if a machine
translator exists for a language then we usually have a wiki for it. It
might still be useful for a whole new project - eg a new area of coverage
that is going to be set up in common languages. It might not be perfect but
some meaning will come through and it'll help, much like town/city/village
bot articles did.)
FT2



On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Amir E. Aharoni, 31/07/2012 08:35:
>
>  Hello,
>>
>> There are many projects in small languages. People want to develop
>> them, but are often not sure what should they do. Even something basic
>> like "improve existing pages and write new ones" may not be obvious.
>>
>> Is there something like a "task list for new projects"?
>>
>
> Yes, a few heroes wrote <https://meta.wikimedia.org/**
> wiki/Manual_for_small_and_new_**Wikipedias<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Manual_for_small_and_new_Wikipedias>>
> a while ago (thanks!) but they've never been helped enough to make it
> complete (and more general).
> This can be useful too: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/**
> wiki/Category:Wikimedia_**projects_coordination<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_projects_coordination>>
> (we need more work on pages like those).
>
> Nemo
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<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] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[FT2]

Two quick notes

   - Photography from public land is permissible, though security/police
   may try to 
object.
   Cannot be stopped, equipment seized, or photos deleted unless "reasonable"
   suspicion of terrorism or evidence of terrorism. Security guards have
   claimed "you are breaching our security" but have no right in law to act on
   public ground; police and industry bodies have tried to train event
   security staff to be aware of
this.
   The British Security Industry Association has a leaflet which spells out
   the law: *"If an individual is in a public place photographing or
   filming a private building, security guards have no right to prevent the
   individual from taking photographs," ... [adding that filming or taking a
   photograph].. does not in itself indicate hostile reconnaissance or other
   suspicious behaviour*". *[previous link]
*
   - Reports and ticket terms conflict.
   Reports say "Earlier this year, Locog said photographers will not face
   confiscation of camera gear at the gates, but that security staff have a
   right to challenge people whose equipment interferes with the view of other
   spectators once inside. ‘No way are we trying to target camera users,' said
   a Locog spokesman in February. ‘The issue is basically around
size.' 
"
   but ticket T&C prohibitions include "unauthorised transmissions and/or
   recording through mobile telephones or other instruments (video cameras,
   tape recorders, etc)"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[FT2]

Naive and over reactive. Do that all the time and it's pointless (loses
value). That was the consensus at the time of SOPA  and I don't see
anything that's changed since. Blackouts are the rarest of rare protests,
certainly not for matters that don't threaten us. At worst inability to
freely photo a sports event is no different than inability to freely
photograph inside some country's museums - negotiation and good example
gets further than petulant actions.

Photography in circumstances like the olympics is a very common matter -
the National Portrait Gallery issue wasn't dissimilar in a way, images were
validly able to be distributed without breaching copyright but location
owner had imposed conditions of entry on the person wishing to do so, that
were widely (by those in his camp anyway) felt to be unfair or desirous to
bypass.  Obtainer decided to and obtained images anyway and freely made
them available to others.

This generic situation is quite common, though not often so high profile as
NPG or the olympics.

FT2



On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> It's time to black out coverage of the olympics.
>
> This would be a blackout that could actually make a difference.
___
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?

[FT2]

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  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] Update on IPv6

[FT2]

Yes. Risker has understood.

Her word "masking" means for me, that we would like to make it hard or
create a high hurdle, for third parties wanting to find or prove a link
between the public displayed ID of non-logged in users and other off-site
ID such as their IP address that can be used to externally correlate or
identify a real-world individual.   (Which is not really any more than we
do for logged in users)

What exact label is publicly displayed is secondary.  Otherwise
pseudonymity wouldn't work either.  Its functions are (1) attribution, (2)
a convenient shorthand for "the unknown real world individual responsible
for this edit" in wiki-discussions, and (3) some minimal consistency of
identification.

FT2

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Risker  wrote:

> On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan  wrote:
> (more snipping)



> 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] Update on IPv6

[FT2]

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  wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM, FT2  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

[FT2]

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 wrote:

> 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  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Kim Bruning 
> > 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