It still references 'commit access' though...
Alex Monk
On 09/06/13 04:45, Risker wrote:
The requirements for voting are almost identical in 2013 compared to 2011.
For editor voters, WMF staff and contractors, and Board/advisory board
members, they are exactly the same. A modification was
Dear all,
Thought you might like to hear news from Wikimedia UK's AGM.
We held elections for four Trustees - we elect 3 one year and 4 the next,
for two-year terms.
Saad Choudhri and Greyham Dawes were elected for the first time, but are
not new to the Board, as they were both co-opted to fill
This is a simple question with a potentially very complicated answer.
What, if any, are the implications of the PRISM scandal for Wikimedia?
Does the fact that our servers are based in the US now compromise our
mission either in a technical, privacy or an ethical sense?
- Liam / Wittylama
All edits and other actions are archived, but I would think there would
be zero interest or utility to NSA. I would simply ignore the matter.
Fred
This is a simple question with a potentially very complicated answer.
What, if any, are the implications of the PRISM scandal for Wikimedia?
My understanding is that PRISM focused on private electronic
communication. I can't see a situation where we would be concerned by
that.
But some official statement could help put at ease people worries :)
--
Christophe
On 10 June 2013 03:34, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
All edits
2013/6/9 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
All edits and other actions are archived, but I would think there would
be zero interest or utility to NSA. I would simply ignore the matter.
How about private messages from Special:EmailUser?
Just asking. I haven't studied the subject of PRISM much
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
There is plenty of reason to think the government would be interested in
Wikipedia access logs.
On the other hand, there's very little reason to believe an organization
when they say they haven't been turning over information under a top secret
order which they're not allowed to tell anyone
What information could the WMF disclose that isn't already available to
some volunteers anyhow? The IP addresses of logged-in editors are visible to
volunteer CUs; deleted revisions and log entries are visible to all
volunteers admins. Wikipedia's inherently a pretty transparent system...
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Benoit Landry benoit_lan...@hotmail.comwrote:
What information could the WMF disclose that isn't already available to
some volunteers anyhow?
I don't know what information some volunteers have access to, who
qualifies as some volunteers (does the board
I'd suggest that while Wikimedia projects are somewhat less susceptible to
PRISM-style snooping, simply because we're not a communications medium like
Google or Facebook are. However, there is plenty of non-public information
that could be of interest:
- The IP addresses and identities of logged
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.netwrote:
I wouldn't say that there's nothing to worry about, but at the same time I
doubt we're near the top of the spooks' priority list.
Maybe not priority-wise, but remember that the cooperation between
Mediawiki
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Maybe not priority-wise, but remember that the cooperation between
Mediawiki developers and the CIA goes back several years at the least.
Please feel free to elaborate, Just because they use MediaWiki doesn't
mean the
13 matches
Mail list logo
