that well.
~Nathan
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I don't think it does say that, or if it does, I can't see where. You're
certainly liable if you break a law in your own country, but I don't think
you've broken the terms of use. It says
in the Americas range.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
birgitte...@yahoo.com, 03/05/2012 14:17:
Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it,
is neither wise nor ethical.
On the other hand, this is what happens (o could have happened) in
, as well as the host Wikimedians, take no political positions implicit
or otherwise.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
What happens to your system if an article is deleted from Wikipedia, a new
article is posted again under the same name, and then that one is also
deleted?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Kirill Lokshin
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established
user have the right to be notified when and why they are being checkusered.
The evidence checkusers get do not need to be disclosed, Its as simple
and which don't, that seems
like a lot of work that a vanishingly small number of abusers would
attempt... and also basically the same information as they would receive
when those sock accounts are ultimately blocked or not blocked per CU.
~Nathan
,
potentially personally identifying) has been disclosed to another
volunteer.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:22 AM, En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Nathan,
For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU
checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the information
disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of
whether or not
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Nathan wrote:
It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from
O'Dwyer's January extradition trial:
[snip]
It looks like these – rather than NPOV – are the values that Wikipedia has
been co-opted to
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote:
On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully
refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to
read 3/4ths
Think of a logo or a trademark as an identity; the arguments for releasing
free informational content are totally separate from allowing others to
make free use of your (or WMFs) identity. You might as well ask why not
release your name for any possible commercial use. I suspect you wouldn't
agree
It's worth noting here that there is something of a disagreement about the
import of the Terms of Use; Steve Walling and Ryan Kaldari have argued that
the ToU require that the Wikimedia community devise a policy permitting and
describing a process for instituting global bans. In fact, the ToU
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Right now, the RfC is trending towards dispensing with the current global
ban policy. A large portion of that sentiment is from people opposed
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought about that but beyond the language issue, the RfC has also been
open for awhile and had significant participation. Since the trend
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you read my email?
*
me:we can make a logo under a free license, with the trademark rights
guaranteed.*
*
you:that the logos are not released under a free license because they are
trademarks.*
The project is empty. It's recent changes feed shows no edits (not sure how
that is even possible). All the links on the front page are redlinks. The
point of the project is stated as influencing the decisions of politicians.
I suspect few will dispute the conclusion that Ratiopol is not ripe for
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 29 July 2012 22:33, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see how you would think this if you're not involved with these
communities, but a clear majority of the active editors on Portuguese
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 29 July 2012 22:48, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
While I may not be involved in the Portuguese Wikipedia, I do
Andreas makes a really important point below. Now that I read it from his
perspective, it seems like what we're dealing with here is a surreptitious
attempt by the General Counsel to hijack the Wikimedia Foundation and its
projects to serve their covert corporate masters. Obviously the Bilderberg
Never having been to design school like Amir, I can't comment on what grade
it might get. But I do like it a lot; I think it's a serious improvement
over what we use now, and incorporates design principles that we should
adopt even if we don't take the design itself. The visual elements, the
No one will argue these days that the WMF is short of money, so this is a
good opportunity for it to deploy some of that funding for a real impact.
The main page on the English Wikipedia is an ideal starting point for a
conscious effort at design evolution throughout Wikimedia. The Foundation
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:11 PM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
But there could be some grey areas, for example if no EU
source is covering something then an EU editor sourcing a fact from a
reliable source in the US might be in difficulty. Especially if that fact
was
to information which is
individually identifying. If it has been de-identified, which is presumably
not that difficult for x-ray images, then distribution is permitted for
other purposes without the patients' authorization.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
them to Commons or providing
them to medical image repositories).
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
The Wikitravel site seems to be declining in a hurry, even from what
was evidently a sad state just several months ago. The main remaining
administrator, an employee who goes by IBobi (IB as in Internet
Brands), has limited his actions almost exclusively to arguing with
other community members and
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
entity under Section 230
Reading through the IB filing, they aren't even bothering to structure
a good case. It's all blather and no substance (claiming, for
instance, that the defendants have been unjustly enriched by
establishing a website with a name confusingly similar to WikiTravel;
when of course no such site
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:11 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com 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
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 8:36 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 September 2012 12:25, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
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
The concerns over Bamkin's involvement in WM-UK and GibraltarpediA
seem a little overwrought, but the situation isn't helped by his
minimalist approach to public communication - prompted perhaps in part
by the accusatory, judgmental tone of his UK questioners. Still, it's
too bad he's not more
it sniped by someone with other interests?
~Nathan
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
thanks for the offer :) That was indeed the situation I was referring to.
It would probably be good
Wow. I honestly didn't think the conflict of interest issue was this
serious. What does giving up the next fundraiser due to the WM-UK
budget? Does this change reflect a lack of trust between the WMF and
the current WM-UK leadership?
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
So there will be both a committee, with expenses covered, and a paid
consultant all to identify candidates for a single position?
Interesting. But you don't yet know where the WCA will be
incorporated, which laws it will abide, the magnitude of its budget,
or a host of other considerations?
On
Reporting the suspicion to the publisher should be enough, I wouldn't
think of that as unethical. You aren't doing immediate harm to the
author; presumably any reasonable publisher would ask the author about
the situation before taking drastic action, giving the author the
opportunity at that time
on the table. Or at least if it was, I
certainly didn't hear about it.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
of by it.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
? I don't
really know if that would be easier on you, raise more money or be
better for readers, but it's something to consider.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
The upshot is, vocal Wikimedians on mailing lists hate banners, and are
quite willing to sternly lecture about their dire consequences! It's left
to the Foundation, then, to choose between large numbers of donations from
happy donors and unamused mailing list participants. Tough call.
My own
and pride in their work, and in the future take more care with
comments that impugn their work, professionalism and character.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia
for the
12-13 fiscal year. That is an aggressive increase, even if less aggressive
proportionally than we've seen in prior years.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
be wrong to raise money purely based on the amount you thought you
could raise and without regard to what you plan to responsibly spend.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman
The obvious point, which has been made many times on this list over the
years, is that activity on mailing lists or meta is not a good proxy for
measuring the activity of a member of the board. The best measure would be
engagement with the duties of the board (which don't include posting on the
Tim and Erik's views aren't at all incompatible or mutually exclusive;
they're just looking at opposite ends of the same problem, which stated
fully is that experienced editors leave and the pace of new editors turning
into experienced editors is too low to maintain a steady community size.
Erik's
The objects of a press embargo are to, as I understand it, coordinate the
release of information and make sure that staff are available to answer
questions or react to developments after release. I'm sure the WMF has some
flexibility within their normal business hours, but... as with any global
Wikipedia's policies are meant to protect and further the goals of the
project, and to offer what little safeguard they can against undue harm to
good faith participants. People who try to undermine the project, or act in
a way antithetical to its goals, or themselves attempt to cause harm to
good
Presumably Round 1 disbursements have already been made, which means that
the chapters in receipt of funds can choose to spend them how they see fit.
But I don't recall seeing plans to donate money to the WCA in funding
requests to the FDC, and I suspect that since the WMF has chosen not to
MZ - The last time this came up was in the context of the Jobvite listings,
and at the time I believe you directed people to the privacy policy. I
don't have the exact quote handy, but I think you said something like the
privacy policy of the site or service collecting information has to be
In fairness to the WMF tech team, and without totally absolving them
of delays, it looks like a lot of the delay has been related to
problems contacting and exchanging information with the OTRS inventor.
Not that the WMF couldn't have put more energy into staying in touch
with him, but it's worth
That means the only votes belong to those on the Council; this could
be easily resolved by other chapters becoming members, as has been
said, but presumably some who have refused so far... do so because
they have to accept the rights, duties and obligations of a member.
These include allowing the
Hmm. There were 77 comments in support, and 68 comments in opposition,
but it was closed as supporting the global bans policy in its current
form. Interesting.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
This RFC has previously been discussed on this list. The RFC is
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
Note the comments for the second option were to support the position that
the policy needed revision. Essentially it means not yet, not I oppose
global bans . There were only 17 comments in favor of having no
Just out of curiousity, MZ, what is your interest in the text of the
NDA? Anyone required to abide by one has seen it and knows what the
terms are, and no one who hasn't seen it is bound by it. So other than
just being curious, is there are particular reason you want to know
more about it?
In fact, not one single non-anonymous person has ever said anything
different than what Marc just posted (as far as I know). James Salsman
is alone in his crusade; the people he believes he is fighting for
evidently don't desire his help. My suspicion is that this all goes
back to his attempt to
I too thought the gmail translate worked really well, until I saw Asaf
suggest they stop using bad words - which I guess gmail stripped out,
because I didn't see any!
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
be a good idea.
~Nathan
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Creating a new thread because the other is apparently running in circles
now.
phoebe ayers, 14/03/2013 21:38:
Yes. In an university context, which is what I'm most familiar with (and
where
to
crowdsourcing and existing philanthropic organizations.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Anders Wennersten
m...@anderswennersten.se wrote:
Nathan skrev 2013-03-15 15:24:
no tangible
benefit to separating a Trust from the actual ownership and
management of the Wikimedia projects. I read the meta page
disruption in income, but
avoid some of the challenges of a larger endowment and related
campaign.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
of administrators will
continue to perform the bulk of the work as they have been for a long
time. When even the committee can't claim they are contributing
solutions, it's clear not much will be lost if their role is
discontinued while a replacement is sought.
~Nathan
I too would say (A) no, (B) no, (C) no and never.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
This back and forth is tangential to Mike's proposal. Maybe make it a
separate thread?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
haha, that was awesome Oliver!
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
We are Wikimedians from different parts of the world and conducted a study
on the world's longest piece of spammed mailing list notification, Biggest
Fake Conference in Computer Science,
The necessity of public comment on a detailed budget is overblown. I
don't think the Foundation should dedicate a lot of time or resources
into getting input into the budget development process from members of
the community. This is one area where expertise and the ability to
dedicate a
- and
the levers for those roles already exist.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
community. Presumably that would include most members of most
organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
workers who also participate as
Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being
subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always
going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time
to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make
volunteers more comfortable
a
recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
criticism and Sue's impending departure.
Nathan
Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he
suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which
chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I
referred to WMKH specifically, my comments were not directed at it.
In any case, it's fictional
Argh, why do we have to keep going through this over and over again?
I'm sure we're long past the point where Sue and many members of the
staff are convinced that they will be attacked by someone in reaction
to any decision they could make. Maybe that's true, but its no excuse
for transforming
If the conflict was primarily with MZMcBride (which seems to be the
case), then it was a bit cowardly to overhaul the entire scheme on the
site in order to avoid telling him to knock it off.
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote:
There's been a long-term conflict with
It's also worth noting this wasn't a last minute decision at all; its
foreshadowed in a number of comments by Philippe going back to
seemingly mid-March, and there may be warnings of it earlier. So the
WMF staff have been discussing this change internally for at least 6
weeks or so. That's a long
should be asking isn't are the rates of expenses in
Hong Kong too high but did the purpose of the travel justify the
facially reasonable expenses.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
here. I can
understand that for senior representatives of the US government on official
business, since prestige seems to be an issue there, but for individuals on
charity business?
I'm not saying outrageous, but I am saying unreasonable….
Thanks,
Mike
On 13 May 2013, at 21:22, Nathan
I think the point got lost that this is the budget (i.e. the maximum
allotted), not the actual spending plan. It's highly probable that the
actual costs will be something other than the maximum allowed amount.
Perhaps we should restrain our outrage until then.
Meanwhile, let's start another
Pine says no one suggested firing Gayle or Philippe; I think it's
clear that whatever semantics are invoked, he did suggest just that.
That's beyond inappropriate, in my view, and an example of the toxic
environment that will lead to less fruitful communication from the WMF
and not more. It's not
Crossed to Wikimedia-l, see Deryck's e-mail below.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Wikimania community,
There are currently two discussions on Meta which will have a fundamental
impact on the technical logistics of all future Wikimania bids.
As
Too bad mailing list posts don't count :-P My editing has been highly
sporadic, and for the first time in six years, apparently I don't
qualify to vote.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2013 23:16, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Who
I think an official statement would be unnecessary and ill advised. It
doesn't affect Wikimedia projects, there is no reason to think it
does, and involving itself would be a mistake the WMF can and should
avoid.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Christophe Henner
christophe.hen...@gmail.com
, the topic has been debated for many years without real
resolution.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi Alex, just curious - since you refer to yourself as an economist,
what institution(s) are you affiliated with?
And can you explain how writing Economy of X articles, no matter how
detailed, will solve the problem of uneven resource distribution
around the world?
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:13
or substantial funding to
meet the requirements when they don't have the money to pay for
administrative help. Perhaps chapters in that situation should ask for
small grants for that purpose in the run up to FDC qualification, and
then build future admin costs into the FDC proposal?
~Nathan
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Thehelpfulone
thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote:
Please could you explain why was this message only sent to Internal-l,
given the discussions on this list in April about shutting down
. It boggles my mind, to
be honest, that the WMF continues to run into these PR crises without
having thought through deeply engaging communication plans and
feedback loops.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
As is usually the case, I'm not saying this to have a go at the developers
or anyone else involved (who are obviously doing their best), but I think
that some of the communication on this topic has been a bit
David, do you have experience managing a fully distributed
organization with offices and staff concentrations spread around the
world? If so, can you outline how you resolved the various challenges
(HR, coordination between teams and managers, effective oversight and
mission management, insurance
Thanks Zack for your hard work over the last few years. There's no
questioning the fantastic success in fundraising the WMF has seen
during your tenure, and I know I've appreciated your willingness to
engage and discuss fundraising issues with members of the community.
Good luck with whatever
What surprises me is that anyone is surprised by any of this information.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Matthew Walker mwal...@wikimedia.org wrote:
What surprises me is that anyone is surprised by any of this information.
It's one thing to have suspicions and theories about it; but if the third
party is constantly denying the allegations and with no recourse
traffic isn't exempt from a dragnet that catches literally
everything else.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ
And another thought - you know what unites most of the other companies
represented by the logos in that image? Leaks have confirmed that most
of them are the subject of secret orders to turn over huge amounts of
raw data to the government. They are all bound to secrecy by law, so
without
1 - 100 of 425 matches
Mail list logo
