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 it
>
> On Jun 14, 2012 1:30 AM, "Brandon Harris" wrote:
> >
> >A couple of weeks ago, Brion Vibber and I started walking through
> a series of thoughts about eliminating publicly viewable IP addresses
> altogether, creating "Proto Accounts". That is, to completely anonymize
> anonymous users
On Jun 14, 2012 1:30 AM, "Brandon Harris" wrote:
>
>A couple of weeks ago, Brion Vibber and I started walking through
a series of thoughts about eliminating publicly viewable IP addresses
altogether, creating "Proto Accounts". That is, to completely anonymize
anonymous users (by calling t
On 13/06/12 00:39, Kim Bruning wrote:
> What with XS4ALL (my ISP) now also offering IPv6 out-of-the-box, there's
> at least one extra IPv6 anon on en.wp. ;-)
>
> I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned
> dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But th
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> Nathan, I'm still trying to come up with *any* site that permits
> unregistered users to post but also publishes their full IP address. Can
> you think of any at all? Let's not limit it to the big guys, let's really
> think this through and exp
On 13 June 2012 15:39, Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Risker wrote:
> Risker wrote:
>
> "I am struggling to think of any other website of any nature that I have
> ever visited that publicly identifies editors/posters by their IP address,
> except for a few other wikis. I've se
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> The original Wikipedia platform (lo those long years ago) published only
> partial IP addresses. Today, "significantly less transparency" seems to
> mean "create an acccount" to many people. However, that is antithetical to
> the "anyone can edi
On 13 June 2012 15:06, Nathan wrote:
> I have to disagree for several reasons. First, while you are correct that
> no other top 10 website publishes IP information of users, that is in no
> small part a byproduct of how different Wikipedia is from the other 9.
>
I am struggling to think of
On 13 June 2012 15:06, Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> >
> > I think perhaps I was not clear in what I meant by "nefarious" purposes.
> > The IP addresses in our contribution logs have been used by others to
> > locate editors, to make allegations against indiv
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> I think perhaps I was not clear in what I meant by "nefarious" purposes.
> The IP addresses in our contribution logs have been used by others to
> locate editors, to make allegations against individuals and organizations
> because their IP addres
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 exter
On 13 June 2012 14:29, Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> > On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan 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
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:
>
> 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-ou
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 a
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 r
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan 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
On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan wrote:
>
>
> Why is "improving anonymity" a goal? Our privacy policy governs the
> disclosure of non-public information, but the IP addresses of editors
> without an account have always been effectively public. Are IP editors
> clamoring for more privacy? Is maski
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM, FT2 wrote:
> IPv6 is designed to operate on a "one IP = one device/connection" (non-NAT)
> basis, far more than IPv4. Privacy policy coversd "personally identifiable
> information". An IP becomes personally identifying when it broadly allows
> a person to be ide
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
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
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
2012/6/13 Kim Bruning :
> I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned
> dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But the
> dynamic assignment option does alleviate some people's privacy
> concerns, right?
It depends on their OS. On Windows, OSX, iOS and Ub
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 e
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 will
On Jun 2, 2012, at 1:05, Tim Starling wrote:
> 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 protect
On Jun 2, 2012, at 6:13, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart wrote:
What personal information do you think is contained in an IPv6 address?
>>>
>>> Don't they so
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Erik Moeller 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 production t
On Jun 2, 2012, at 5:06 AM, Erik Moeller 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
> exhausted.
>
>
Th
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Leslie Carr wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>>> On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart wrote:
> What personal information do y
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart wrote:
What personal information do you think is contained in an IPv6 address?
>>>
>>> Don't they s
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart wrote:
>>> What personal information do you think is contained in an IPv6 address?
>>
>> Don't they sometimes contain MAC address information?
>
> I don't k
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Anthony wrote:
> My own prediction is that, within a short period of time, 99.% of
> edits done through IPv6 will be abuse. I'd say immediately, but 5
> days may be a bit too short for hoards of people to figure out how to
> chain an IPv6 proxy and TOR.
Lest s
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> * 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
Hi,
if people wants privacy they should use a account, this is nothing
different from IPV4.
When the mission is to make sure that everybody can have free knowledge we
should not delay IPV6
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart wrote:
> > W
On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart wrote:
>> What personal information do you think is contained in an IPv6 address?
>
> Don't they sometimes contain MAC address information?
I don't know, but I wouldn't consider my MAC address to be personal
info
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart wrote:
> What personal information do you think is contained in an IPv6 address?
Don't they sometimes contain MAC address information?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
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
we'l
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
John Du Hart wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Risker 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 cases almos
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Hersfold wrote:
> 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
> announcemen
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 rece
I've been a little busy this spring, but I am interested in the IPv6
transition (at work, too) and missed this here as well.
I don't object as Anne is here, but I'm not doing the work she's doing
on project either.
-george
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:35 PM, John wrote:
> Multiple sign posts Janua
Multiple sign posts January 17 this year. There was also a May 2011
foundation announcement along with countless other notes
On Friday, June 1, 2012, Risker wrote:
> 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
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 fro
Wow Risker, you obviously don't read any mailing lists/ blogs or sign
posts. I just did a quick search of my email records for wiki tech and ipv6
the first result that I see is from July 2007. Almost 5 years ago, I also
remember a big push last year about this same time for ipv6.
On Friday, June 1
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 Departm
On 2 June 2012 00:08, Risker 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 vanishingly unlikely
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 1 June 2012 17:12, Erik Moeller 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.
On 1 June 2012 17:12, Erik Moeller 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 production testing of
- Original Message -
From: "Risker"
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List"
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6
On 1 June 2012 17:12, Erik Moeller wrote:
Hi all,
June 6, 2012 is IPv6 Day ( http://www.worldipv6day.org/ ). The
On 1 June 2012 17:12, Erik Moeller 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 production testing of
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Huib Laurens 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 block a complet
Hello Erik,
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 block a complete range to start
with?
Best,
Huib
On Fri, Jun 1,
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 production testing of IPv6 during the
Berlin Hackathon 2012 (June 2-3). Provi
54 matches
Mail list logo
