Nathan, 13/06/2012 20:37:
In my view, no. I think we need to balance the risk argument for
anonymity (dissidents, whistleblowers, people editing topics they wouldn't
want to be publicly associated with, etc.) with the benefits of partial
anonymity. Among these benefits I'd cite the many news
2012/6/13 Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl:
I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned
dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But the
dynamic assignment option does alleviate some people's privacy
concerns, right?
It depends on their OS. On
On a separate note about IPv6: I just saw the first IPv6 anon entry
appearing on my watchlist. It's exciting!
Deryck
On 13 June 2012 13:43, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl
wrote:
I noticed that my current IPv6 address
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
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 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
snipping FT2's comment
Why is improving anonymity a goal? Our privacy policy governs the
disclosure of non-public information, but the IP addresses of editors
without an account have always been effectively public. Are IP editors
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
On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Risker wrote:
I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking the
*publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses. The only reason that we publish the IP
addresses of any logged-out user is for attribution purposes, although some
use it for other
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
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Risker wrote:
I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking
the
*publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses. The only reason that we publish the
IP
addresses of
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 this
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:12:58PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
Hi all,
We're planning to do limited production testing of IPv6 during the
Berlin Hackathon 2012 (June 2-3). Provided that the number of issues
we encounter are manageable, we may fully enable IPv6 on IPv6 day, and
keep it
Hi folks,
Mark Bergsma just shared the following recap with me, for those who
are interested in the details of what happened at the hackathon and
next steps. tl;dr: If all goes well we'll be ready to launch full
production deployment on Wednesday, starting around 10AM UTC
(MediaWiki engineers
On Jun 2, 2012, at 6:13, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart compwhi...@gmail.com wrote:
What personal
John Du Hart wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, what time is this scheduled to go live? And on which projects?
Please be specific here.
I am gravely concerned about the privacy issues that are attached to IPv6
IP addresses, as they are in many
On 02/06/12 05:04, Hersfold wrote:
I'm very concerned that this is what's going to happen with the IPv6
change - something major is going to fail, and the wiki will become
inaccessible, or some major security feature (blocking or protection,
for example) will be rendered inoperable, leaving
Hi Risker et al,
a few important points:
* IPv6 adoption is still below 1% globally [1].
* It's likely that we'll encounter network-level issues well before we
hit application-level issues during limited production testing.
* In the event that we manage to resolve all issues, it's likely that
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart compwhi...@gmail.com wrote:
What personal information do you think is contained in an IPv6 address?
Don't they
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart compwhi...@gmail.com wrote:
What personal
On Jun 2, 2012, at 5:06 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Moving towards full IPv6 support is part of our responsibility as a
good Internet citizen, and this has been in the works for a long time.
It's never been an option not to do this as IPv4 addresses are being
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
June 6, 2012 is IPv6 Day ( http://www.worldipv6day.org/ ). The goal of
this global event is to move more ISPs, equipment manufacturers and
web services to permanent adoption of IPv6.
We're planning to do limited
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com wrote:
In our case here we give away /48 IPV6 to users by default. So I'm
wondering, when a IP vandalize Wikipedia or any other project and a block
will be placed, how is this done?
Will the block just hit the IP or will it
On 1 June 2012 17:12, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
June 6, 2012 is IPv6 Day ( http://www.worldipv6day.org/ ). The goal of
this global event is to move more ISPs, equipment manufacturers and
web services to permanent adoption of IPv6.
We're planning to do limited
On 2 June 2012 00:08, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Fully enabling IPv6 has been coming a *long* time - over a year, with
months of planning and work before even that - as Erik's first message
in this thread notes, and it was hardly a secret. Your objections may
be entirely too late - it is
Indeed, a long time. Discussed on Mediawiki and bugzilla; it's not even
discussed on Wikitech-L. Neither of which 99.9% of users, including
many volunteer developers, have time to follow. This is not just a
technical change, it's a cultural one.
I've long stood up for the Engineering
I've got about 18 months worth of Wikitech-L in my archives, and there are
two threads that talk about IPv6; one from March, that didn't provide a lot
of information, and this one. There may be others, but they're not popping
up on my search.
Forgive me for failing to read this week's signpost
Sorry if I'm veering off on a tangent or repeating things here, I only
just got added to this list a short while ago but was asked to convey my
concerns here.
While this has been discussed for some time, it seems as though the
announcement that this is getting turned on was only made just
28 matches
Mail list logo
