Dear Ms. Tretikov,

Would you please speak on the new revision of the "Access to Non-Public 
Information" policy? Can you express your objection to it? Can you express your 
support of it? You'll find it here:

This governs the conditions by which the WMF grants access to potentially 
personally-identifying data such as IPs and web-browser profiles of Wikipedia 
editors. It grants these to particular administrative participants, for example 
checkusers and oversighters and arbitrators, of the various "communities," for 
example the Wikipedias of various languages.

Under the terms of the prior access policy, those administrative participants 
were required to send a fax or scanned copy of an identification document. 
Editors were led to believe that the WMF kept record of who these people 
actually were. It was repeatedly claimed that they had "identified to WMF." 
This soothed the concerns of editors like me that thought, okay, well at least 
someone knows who they are. The truth was that a WMF employee marked a chart of 
usernames only that the administrative participant's ID showed someone 18 or 
over, and then shredded or otherwise destroyed those records. The phrase that 
so-and-so "has identified to WMF" or "is identified to WMF" was so commonly 
stated, including by the WMF, that I regard it as a great deception and 
betrayal that it really was shredding and destroying the identifications.

The new policy is even worse. It abandons the mere pretense of an 
identification. So while it goes the wrong direction, at least it ceases to 
deceive. All it calls for now is an email address, an assertion that the person 
is 18 or over, and an assertion that the owner of the email account has read a 
short confidentiality agreement. The person need not provide a real name. You 
are well aware that various web-email services offer basically untraceable 
email addresses. You are well aware that only a named person can enter into 
agreement on confidentiality. An agreement by a Wikipedia username with an 
untraceable email address is not only unenforceable, it is a ludicrous 

The webpage says the policy is not in effect yet. I urge you to reject it as 
written and instead have it amended to actually require identification for 
those faceless entities you prepare to turn loose with potentially cyberstalker 

Whatever your stance, I do call on you to speak on the question. Say "yea," say 
"nay," or say "not my concern," but at least speak.

Trillium Corsage  

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to