Mailing List Archive

Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [ In reply to ]
I found this thread now and forwarded it to translator-l, for asking
for translation, if they think it appropriate: but there are only four
days until the announced deadline.

Michael, could you please extend it, say, one more week? For most of
non-English community, regarding the time of translation, even if they
luckily get their own language version of the draft, they may have
only one or two days. Still one week is shorter, but better than
nothing.

Cheers,

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:
> I've been meaning to update you on our progress regarding the privacy
> policy.
>
> Several months ago, the board asked Mike Godwin to revise and update the
> privacy policy. Mike consulted with his colleagues at the Electronic
> Frontier Foundation, and then worked with his then-legal intern,
> Shun-ling Chen, to create a first redraft which was posted to Meta at
> the beginning of June. That engendered a lot of feedback, which Mike
> reviewed. He found quite a bit of it useful, and incorporated it into a
> subsequent redraft, which is available here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_Privacy_Policy_June_19_2008
> (note: despite the date in the page name, the current version is from a
> later date, based on feedback from the June 19 version)
>
> At our meeting in Alexandria, the board reviewed the status of the
> policy, and seemed inclined to agree that this second version (at the
> URL above) is fundamentally good, and an improvement on the current
> policy. It's hard to write a privacy policy that's fun to read, but I
> think this version is clear, thorough, responsible and accurate. It also
> now includes a linkable table of contents, which will enable people to
> easily link to subsections of the draft for reference. (When adopted, we
> encourage you to link to the appropriate section from community policy
> pages where they touch on privacy issues, rather than paraphrasing or
> generating unofficial versions of the policy.)
>
> The board intends to vote on this version, but before we do, I wanted to
> provide one last opportunity for your feedback.
>
> If you see something in this last draft that strikes you as a
> dealbreaker: that is potentially misleading or seriously problematic for
> any reason, please send me or Mike a note. If we don't hear anything
> within a week, I will ask the board to vote on the current version for
> formal adoption.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [ In reply to ]
SlimVirgin wrote:
> I don't know how or whether the Data Protection Act would apply, but I
> think if members of the UK group were involved in retaining checkuser
> information (and I have no idea whether they are), it would kick in if
> a request were made under the Act. I mentioned it only as an example.
>
> ...
>
> The legal sleight of hand hasn't worked with animal liberationists and
> I don't see how it can work here either. The courts do find a way to
> hold people and groups responsible for the damage and distress they
> cause, so the best thing is to avoid the damage ahead of time by
> making sure the checkuser and privacy policies are strictly enforced.
We may well be dealing with something unenforceable here. If a person
with checkuser privileges wishes to keep a private file full of data
about every time he used the privilege, how can anyone stop him? As
long as he has those privileges such a file can make his work more
efficient. We can say that the file must be destroyed once he loses the
privilege, but we have no way of making sure that he does. If he tries
to use the information later for improper purposes his ownership of the
information will become obvious, but in most cases the file will just
lie dormant until the hardware is ready for the scrap heap.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [ In reply to ]
Aphaia wrote:
> I found this thread now and forwarded it to translator-l, for asking
> for translation, if they think it appropriate: but there are only four
> days until the announced deadline.
>
> Michael, could you please extend it, say, one more week? For most of
> non-English community, regarding the time of translation, even if they
> luckily get their own language version of the draft, they may have
> only one or two days. Still one week is shorter, but better than
> nothing.
>
Sure, I'll wait an extra week before asking the board to vote, although
I don't want to delay much beyond that. Work on this initiative started
even before our April board meeting, and at some point this particular
segment needs to be brought to a conclusion. Which is not to say the
policy will never again be revised or revisited - Mike is still making
revisions based on feedback he's received.

I asked initially if there were any dealbreakers or aspects that were
seriously misleading, and nobody's identified issues of that nature to
me. So I'm still inclined to think the draft is good and, as a
significant step forward from the existing policy, should be adopted
"with all deliberate speed". I appreciate that there's considerable
interest in how this relates to the Checkuser tool, even though that's
mentioned only a handful of times. This draft is not trying to be the
Checkuser policy, and as Sue has pointed out, that role and therefore
the details of its policy are within the control of the community rather
than the Wikimedia Foundation. But I certainly encourage people to
review the policy and practices of their projects in light of the
overall privacy policy.

(I'm sorry, I thought I heard something there. Did somebody say
Volunteer Council?)

--Michael Snow


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:
> Sure, I'll wait an extra week before asking the board to vote, although
> I don't want to delay much beyond that.

Thank you for one extra week, and hope it works.
Dear translator, please give a look to meta draft, and if you have no
enough time to spare, at least make it sure your home wiki community
informed of this revision?

Cheers,

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net> wrote:
> Aphaia wrote:
>> I found this thread now and forwarded it to translator-l, for asking
>> for translation, if they think it appropriate: but there are only four
>> days until the announced deadline.
>>
>> Michael, could you please extend it, say, one more week? For most of
>> non-English community, regarding the time of translation, even if they
>> luckily get their own language version of the draft, they may have
>> only one or two days. Still one week is shorter, but better than
>> nothing.
>>
> Sure, I'll wait an extra week before asking the board to vote, although
> I don't want to delay much beyond that. Work on this initiative started
> even before our April board meeting, and at some point this particular
> segment needs to be brought to a conclusion. Which is not to say the
> policy will never again be revised or revisited - Mike is still making
> revisions based on feedback he's received.
>
> I asked initially if there were any dealbreakers or aspects that were
> seriously misleading, and nobody's identified issues of that nature to
> me. So I'm still inclined to think the draft is good and, as a
> significant step forward from the existing policy, should be adopted
> "with all deliberate speed". I appreciate that there's considerable
> interest in how this relates to the Checkuser tool, even though that's
> mentioned only a handful of times. This draft is not trying to be the
> Checkuser policy, and as Sue has pointed out, that role and therefore
> the details of its policy are within the control of the community rather
> than the Wikimedia Foundation. But I certainly encourage people to
> review the policy and practices of their projects in light of the
> overall privacy policy.
>
> (I'm sorry, I thought I heard something there. Did somebody say
> Volunteer Council?)
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [ In reply to ]
Well, then, someone's just going to have bite the bullet and ban her. It's not as if we're expecting anything useful from that quarter beyond mere pointless wiki-drama. ArbCom, this is what we set you up for.

CM

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 23:08:05 +0100
> From: dgerard@gmail.com
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Note regarding status of privacy policy
>
> 2008/8/9 SlimVirgin <slimvirgin@gmail.com>:
>
> > There is a body that is full of other checkusers, who instantly take
> > the side of their colleague, so there really is no point in
> > complaining to it. What we need is a truly independent body run by the
> > Foundation, answering only to the Foundation and not to people's
> > mates.
>
>
> Because it must surely be conspiracy, not that you're actually wrong
> and forum-shopping.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_________________________________________________________________
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571440/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [ In reply to ]
You have absolutely no standing to complain about a time limit -
personally, I am very glad to see the Committee putting some effort into
resolving issues in a somewhat timely manner.

You made your complaint in various places, multiple versions at different
times, and failed to file a case yourself. When it was filed "on your
behalf," you ignored it. Now you suddenly don't have enough time to
gather the diffs for a problem in the relatively distant past that you've
been
complaining about ever since?

I'm sorry, I don't expect many to be so credulous as to accept your
dispute of the time limit as good faith. When the Committee publicizes
a decision, you'll have a decision of your own to make - to continue raising
your complaint at every opportunity (claiming its ignored and unresolved)
and thus invite increasingly aggressive censure, or to let it go.

Nathan




On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 6:22 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Your attitude is an example of the problem. When someone has a
> complaint about checkuser use, they are insulted and ridiculed by
> ArbCom members, moaned about by other checkusers, and ignored by the
> Ombudsman commission. Then attacked on this list for "forum shopping"
> if they dare to mention it here.
>
> Of the recent case regarding Lar, I've been told all evidence must be
> submitted by this Sunday, then the case will be closed. But I don't
> have time to hunt for diffs right now, because I have family coming to
> stay until the end of the month. They know this -- they also know this
> is a holiday season -- but they want it closed by Sunday nevertheless,
> for reasons they're unable to explain. So nothing will be resolved.
>
> What puzzles me is why people like you argue against enforcing the
> checkuser policy. If you want to get rid of it -- and if it's so
> patently absurd that only lunatics and conspiracy theorists like me
> would ever want to enforce it -- why not argue for its removal? There
> is simply no point in having a policy that assures editors reasons are
> needed for checks, when in fact no reason is ever needed, and Jimbo
> supports that, while the Ombudsmen won't look at it, the ArbCom won't
> act, the checkuser list won't self-police, and when the issue is
> raised here, it's "forum shopping" and time for more abuse from David
> Gerard.
>
> With the current gulf between policy and practice, we are lying to
> users, pure and simple.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Note regarding status of privacy policy [ In reply to ]
Apologies for being a bit off topic with the previous e-mail. Perhaps
if I'd read to the end of the thread, it would have been more obvious to me
that this issue has been largely (and appropriately) ignored.

Thanks,

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2 3  View All