On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:42 AM,  <emman...@engelhart.org> wrote:
>  Le mer 25/02/09 11:26, Frederic Schutz frederic.sch...@wikimedia.ch a écrit:
>> - this does not allow to easily provide access to non-members who are
>> interested in contributing to a particular project (if someone is
>> motivated to contribute, it probably does not make sense to force him
>> to become a member)
>
> ...encourage him to be member and in worth case ask for an exception to the 
> wiki admin.

Hm... In some projects (especially technical ones, eg. let's say
WikiReader projects, or projects which involve a lot of cooperation
with like-minded persons), third persons would have to be able to get
access and in many cases they might not want to become members (for
example, because they don't even live in Switzerland).

Now, what do we do with them? Make an exception for all of them? Okay,
sure. But then, we'll have dozens of exceptions....so why should we
make it members-only in the first instance?

>
>> - on the other hand, if one is working on a particular project
>> involving contact names, does it make sense to automatically give
>> access to anyone just because they are members of Wikimedia CH ? (*)
>
> We have to trust each other, rules can be done to avoid deviant behaviours.
>

I think all of the board members are committed to transparency, and we
put as much information as possible on our general and public website.
If we think that something should not be on a public website and
google-indexable, it is for a reason. However, in that case it does
not make much sense to allow all members access to it either... We
already now have 70+ members, many of whom we do not know personally,
that is, we have only received their online or offline registration
form, that's it. Two things: a) How am I supposed to trust any person
who I just know from filling out a form? Sure, assume good faith, but
I'm unwilling to disclose really confidential information to a person
just by Assume Good Faith. And if it wasn't confidential, I would make
it public anyway. b) If you disclose something to an audience of more
than 70 people, you can just as well make it public, because the
chances of it "leaking" approach 1 exponentially... I think we should
have more fine-grained access structures than just "a wiki for all
members".

>> Or, in one word: it is inflexible. Unfortunately, as Rupert mentioned,
>> Mediawiki is not ideal for restricting access in a finer-grained way
>> than "member/not member". So how can we improve on this ?
>
> A flexible admin is enough IMO and in any case the most critical infos 
> (password, member list) are not in the wiki.
> Personal infos about members should not be in the wiki if the member is not 
> agree (he has to put them himself).
>

Of course! We don't even need to discuss this -- that is a requirement
of the Swiss Federal Law on Data Protection: we cannot just make
individual members' data available to all members without all members'
consent, that would violate the law... (for the record, currently only
board members and auditors have read access to the details of members)

> This is not really great to speak about this topic again this year... but 
> what I can say is that this decision to make a member only wiki was by 
> Wikimedia France a good one an the most efficient to help members to work 
> with each other (i.e. not only board members are doing something).
>

That's a good point. But then, why can't this collaboration happen on
http://www.wikimedia.ch?  Why do we need an access-restricted
memberswiki for that, as long as it doesn't involve confidential
information?

Regards,
Michael

-- 
Michael Bimmler
mbimm...@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
http://wikimedia.ch Wikimedia CH website
Wikimediach-l mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediach-l

Antwort per Email an