Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia engineering May 2012 report

Hi, The report covering Wikimedia engineering activities in May 2012 is now available. Wiki version: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_report/2012/May Blog version: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/06/13/engineering-may-2012-report/ -- Guillaume Paumier Technical Communication

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] speedydeletion.wika.com lauched

ok kim, thanks again for your constructive feedback, and thanks to everyone who has given input. It is great to have a supportive group of people like you to talk to. now i have upgraded the code, including templates and full history. It gets all new articles not seen before every 10 minutes. Also

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Pro-active user privacy (Was: Update on IPv6)

On 13 June 2012 11:09, 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 masking IPv6

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

[Wikimedia-l] .wiki TLD

All, Just to let you know that the .wiki TLD has been applied for by 'Mr Raymond King' from 'Top level Design LLC'. The company has successfully submitted 10 applications to ICANN for: .blog , .design , .style

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] .wiki TLD

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Richard Symonds wrote: > Little bit confused as to who this chap is... any ideas? It looks like he works for AboutUs.org: -- Casey Brown (Cbrown1023) caseybrown.org ___ Wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] .wiki TLD

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Casey Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Richard Symonds > wrote: >> Little bit confused as to who this chap is... any ideas? > > It looks like he works for AboutUs.org: > Yep :) He's been a core part of

[Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

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? [Personally I think it's an inan

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

Not sure, but I think it's the principle of least /astonishment/ - which may be an important difference... Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk On 13 June 201

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

On 13 June 2012 21:32, Richard Symonds wrote: > Not sure, but I think it's the principle of least /astonishment/ - which > may be an important difference... Pretty sure it doesn't for educational purposes. I think my objection stands in its entirety. (I note that in interface design, "principl

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be displayed where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article on penis or vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or vagina), but wouldn't be immediately displayed where you wouldn't expect them (e.g. if you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

On 13 June 2012 21:44, Michael Peel wrote: > My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be displayed > where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article on penis or > vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or vagina), I don't recall this being con

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

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 fo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

On 13 June 2012 21:56, Nathan wrote: > 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. Bingo - and he

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Michael Peel wrote: > My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be displayed > where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article on penis or > vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or vagina), but wouldn't > be imm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

David Gerard, 13/06/2012 23:02: On-wiki, I see it being used in naming convention arguments for years, as early as April 2005. Yeah, that's arguably a user interface issue (with arguments being somewhat alleviated by a forest of redirects). I see it's been commonly used around user interface i

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

On 13 June 2012 22:02, David Gerard wrote: > On 13 June 2012 21:56, Nathan wrote: > >> 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 on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Pro-active user privacy (Was: Update on IPv6)

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:22:52AM -0700, James Forrester wrote: > > Can I suggest that we try to discuss this on-wiki (as it's more > inclusive of the community)? - > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_user or something linked > from there would be the 'obvious' place to start. Wow

[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a period,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

On 13 June 2012 19:18, John wrote: > This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has > been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and > why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action > as many are for anons. But for th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

I am not a checkuser, I do not have access to checkuser-l, the CU wiki, or any other private information. This goes far beyond the one case, I was just using it as a recent example On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Risker wrote: > On 13 June 2012 19:18, John wrote: > > > This is something that h

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

My apologies to you John - and also to John Vandenberg, whose name popped up when I cursored over this. Please do consider expressing a concern to the Audit Subcommittee with respect to this case, or alternately to the Ombudsman. Risker On 13 June 2012 19:37, John wrote: > I am not a checkuser

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

PS I am not a former arb, do not have access to functionaries mailing list, I do not have access nor have ever had access to any of the above including Oversight. I was just throwing out autoconfirmed as a line in the sand, we can adjust the line so that normal users can be notified while excluding

Re: [Wikimedia-l] .wiki TLD

Someone is willing to pay $210K for the .wiki TLD? The Foundation could have had it for $120,000 in 2009, per Rod Beckstrom's quote. I did an analysis showing it would have probably have been worth it then in amount of time an extreme compact URL would have saved typing. It turned out that users'

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:42 PM, John wrote: > PS I am not a former arb, do not have access to functionaries mailing list, > I do not have access nor have ever had access to any of the above including > Oversight. I was just throwing out autoconfirmed as a line in the sand, we > can adjust the lin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:42 PM, John wrote: > > PS I am not a former arb, do not have access to functionaries mailing > list, > > I do not have access nor have ever had access to any of the above > including > > Oversight. I was just throwi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply whether you have an email address attached to your account or not. This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being done with their dat

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may be done, provided that they are within the limits of the privacy policy. These standards vary widely. So, the correct place to discuss this is on each project. Risker On 13 June 2012 21:02, Thomas Dalton wrote: > Why sho

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and ensuring our privacy more difficult. On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Risker wrote: > Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may > be done, provided that they are within the limits of the pri

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent. As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place. First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured they don't a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

Risker comment was basically "lets not set a global accountability and ability to get CU related logs of our self on a global level, instead take it to each project and fight it out there" to me that reeks of obfuscation. Realistically this should be a global policy, just like our privacy policy is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation < pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that > mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent. > > As you may know, there are a number of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

To be honest the biggest problem is that releasing this information can hurt quite a lot. It can give away the techniques the checkuser (or checkusers, more then one working together is very common to make sure they're right) used to draw the connections. This is especially true for technical infor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

I am not asking for checkuser results, rather the basic logs about when/why/who may have checkusered the account. I am not asking CUs to release IP/user-agent/other info, but to let users know that they are being CUed, by whom and why. and to be able to request that historical information from the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

* Michael Peel wrote: >My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be >displayed where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article >on penis or vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or >vagina), but wouldn't be immediately displayed where you wouldn't e