That tool was Limesurvey. A.
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021, 08:59 Philippe Beaudette <phili...@beaudette.me> wrote: > I would also like to add a bit of historical context. Many years ago, > when I worked at the WMF, we were using a FLOSS survey tool (I don't recall > which). We were fairly dependent on it, when one day someone discovered > that it was vulnerable to sql injection attacks and Tim Starling (I > believe) rightly killed it on our servers. Shortly after that, we moved > toward using a non-free tool that was safer and more robust. I dont recall > that the two events were connected, but I would be surprised if they > weren't. > > Tim did the right thing then, even though it meant that we were moved off > a FLOSS solution. Sometimes "Free" just isn't equal, or better. Sometimes > it's an actual honest-to-god security risk and there are reasons why > WMF's staff aren't using a free alternative to a proprietary tool. Did > anyone ask? > > Philippe > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 12:13 AM Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> To clarify to anyone who doesn't want to read the actual proposal, which >> Fae did not repeat here: >> >> *Proposal* >> >> It is proposed that on Wikimedia Commons that there must be no promotion >> of surveys or questionnaires which rely on third party sites and closed >> source tools, such as Google Forms. This should be interpreted as a ban >> against engaging volunteers by mass messaging, use of banners or posts on >> noticeboards. >> *Recommended consequential action* >> >> Banners and posts which go against this proposal may be removed by >> anyone. >> >> Posting account(s) may be blocked or have group rights removed at the >> discretion of administrators, such as all rights that enable mass >> messaging. In a persistent case, blocks and rights removal may apply to all >> accounts of the person responsible. A rationale of doing their job as >> part of being a WMF employee is not considered an exemption. >> >> >> Now....this applies to everyone who posts about a survey at Wikimedia >> Commons, as this proposal is strictly related to Commons. It is not a >> global proposal. However, it would apply to researchers, to WMF staff, to >> anyone who uses closed-sourced tools. There is no suggestion at all about >> suitable alternative tools. In fact, there is a severe dearth of quality >> open source tools. Researchers may be bound by their facilities to use >> certain types of tools. >> >> Surveys and questionnaires are always voluntary. There's some >> responsibility on the part of the user to read the privacy statements and >> use of information statements that are normally mandatory for any >> legitimate surveys. More than once I've started to participate in a survey >> and decided it was asking questions I didn't want to answer, and just never >> saved them. >> >> >> I think it would also be helpful if someone from WMF Technical could take >> the time to discuss with the broader community what arrangements have been >> made in their contract with Google to ensure that the information on those >> documents (of whatever nature) are not in fact accessible to Google for >> their data gathering or any other purposes. There is, of course, a certain >> irony that three of the four people who have commented on this thread so >> far all have Gmail email addresses. >> >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 00:24, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I agree with Fae's proposal if we are using tools that exclude community >>> members out of safety and privacy concerns then we arent fulfilling the >>> equity goals. I also recognise that alternatives need to be available but >>> with no incentive for them to be used then there is no development of such >>> tools, or improvements to their functionality. Faes proposal is putting the >>> WMF on notice that there are steps we need to take to ensure equity, >>> safety, and privacy in participation. >>> >>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 09:08, Łukasz Garczewski < >>> lukasz.garczew...@wikimedia.pl> wrote: >>> >>>> With respect, Fae, if you're going to propose banning an existing >>>> solution, it is on you to propose a suitable alternative or at least a >>>> process to find it before the ban takes effect. >>>> >>>> I write this as a signatory of Free Software Foundation Europe's Public >>>> Money? Public Code open letter <https://publiccode.eu/openletter/>. I >>>> am wholeheartedly a proponent of open source software. >>>> >>>> At the same time, I am a firm believer in using the best available tool >>>> for the job. >>>> >>>> Our mission is too important to hold ourselves back at every step due >>>> to a noble but often unrealistic wish to use open source solutions for >>>> everything we do. >>>> >>>> Last year, because of my drive to use proper open source solutions, >>>> WMPL wasted hours and hours of staff time (mostly mine) and a not >>>> insignificant amount of members' time because: >>>> >>>> - Zeus, a widely used, cryptographically secure voting system is >>>> impossible to setup and maintain and has very sparse documentation, >>>> - CiviCRM, the premier open source CRM solution for NGOs, refuses >>>> to work correctly after the Wordpress installation is moved to a new >>>> URL, >>>> and documentation isn't helpful. >>>> >>>> To my knowledge there are no suitable open source options that would be >>>> easy-to-use and robust enough to support our needs in both cases and be >>>> comparable to commercial counterparts. >>>> >>>> I have wasted a ton of time (and therefore WMPL money), before I >>>> decided to use state-of-the-art commercial solutions for the needs >>>> described above. Don't be like me. Don't make other people think & act like >>>> I did. Be smarter. >>>> >>>> Should we use an *equivalent* open source solution when one is >>>> available? Yes. >>>> Should we have a public list of open source tools needed? Yes. >>>> Should we use programmes such as Google Summer of Code to build those >>>> tools? Yes. >>>> >>>> Should we waste time using sub-par solutions or doing work manually? >>>> Hell no. >>>> >>>> *So here's a constructive alternative idea:* >>>> >>>> - Let's gather the needs and use cases for tools used by WMF and >>>> affiliates, >>>> - Let's build a list of potential open source replacements and map >>>> what features are missing, >>>> - Let's put the word out that we're looking for open source >>>> replacements where there are none available, >>>> - Let's embed Wikimedia liaisons in key open source projects to >>>> ensure our needs and use cases are addressed promptly, >>>> - Let's use initiatives such as Summer of Code to kickstart >>>> building some of these tools. >>>> >>>> I acknowledge the above is much harder to do than instituting a ban via >>>> community consensus. It is, however, a much more productive approach and >>>> will get us to your desired state eventually, and without sabotaging the >>>> work that needs to happen in the meantime. >>>> >>>> Oh, and in case anybody's wondering why we can't build these tools >>>> in-house: >>>> >>>> We could but really, really shouldn't. MediaWiki and the wider >>>> Wikimedia tech infrastructure is still in need of huge improvements. It >>>> would be really unwise to distract WMF's development and product teams from >>>> these goals by requesting they build standard communication or reporting >>>> tools. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 4:42 PM Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> As a consequence of the promotion of a Google forms based survey this >>>>> week by a WMF representative, a proposal on Wikimedia Commons has been >>>>> started to ban the promotion of surveys which rely on third party >>>>> sites like Google Forms.[1] >>>>> >>>>> Launched today, but already it appears likely that this proposal will >>>>> have a consensus to support. Considering that Commons is one of our >>>>> largest Wikimedia projects, there are potential repercussions of >>>>> banning the on-wiki promotion of surveys which use Google products or >>>>> other closed source third party products like SurveyMonkey. >>>>> >>>>> Feedback is most welcome on the proposal discussion, or on this list >>>>> for handling impact, solutions, recommended alternatives that already >>>>> exist, or the future role of the WMF to support research and surveys >>>>> for the WMF and affiliates by using forking open source software and >>>>> self-hosting and self-managing data "locally". >>>>> >>>>> Links >>>>> 1. >>>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Use_of_off-wiki_surveys_using_third-party_tools >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Fae >>>>> -- >>>>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >>>>> #WearAMask >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Z poważaniem · Kind regards >>>> >>>> Łukasz Garczewski >>>> >>>> Dyrektor ds. operacyjnych · Chief Operating Officer >>>> >>>> Wikimedia Polska >>>> >>>> >>>> tel: +48 601 827 937 >>>> >>>> e-mail: lukasz.garczew...@wikimedia.pl >>>> >>>> <http://wikimedia.pl> >>>> >>>> Wesprzyj wolną wiedzę! >>>> Przekaż 1% podatku lub wpłać darowiznę na rzecz Wikipedii >>>> <https://wikimedia.pl/> >>>> >>>> ul. Tuwima 95, pok. 15 Łódź, Polska >>>> >>>> KRS 0000244732 >>>> >>>> NIP 728-25-97-388 >>>> >>>> wikimedia.pl >>>> >>>> Informacje na temat przetwarzania znajdują się w Polityce Prywatności >>>> <https://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polityka_prywatno%C5%9Bci>. Kontakt: >>>> r...@wikimedia.pl >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> GN. >>> >>> *Power of Diverse Collaboration* >>> *Sharing knowledge brings people together* >>> Wikimania Bangkok 2022 >>> August >>> hosted by ESEAP >>> >>> Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra >>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page >>> My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
