> David Gerard wrote: >>On 10 June 2013 18:01, Rand McRanderson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I think the key here is not to keep more information about users than >>> necessary. >> >>In particular - at present. as I understand it, we don't keep full >>access logs, just 1/1000 samples. >> >>We need to not keep full access logs. > > I'm not sure about access log retention. I know what used to be true > (that > we didn't and frankly couldn't keep full access logs), but I'm not sure > what the current situation is. > > Related to this, however, is a broader point about hiding versus deleting > information. We, as a community, have gotten into a pattern of hiding > (suppressing) information in our databases rather than simply removing it > outright. This has advantages (chiefly reversibility), but the practice > of > sweeping information under the rug rather than taking out the trash can, > and inevitably will, cause issues. Truly problematic usernames, edits, > and > logs really ought to be deleted, not simply suppressed, in my opinion. > > This has come up in the context of database dumps and database > replication. We're basically asking for this information to one day be > leaked by retaining it indefinitely (including usernames that out > individuals, CheckUser logs, content buried inside page histories, etc.). > > MZMcBride
It is much better to be able to monitor oversighters than to completely remove the miniscule portion of suppressed material intelligence agencies might have an interest in. Fred _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
