Mailing List Archive

Hello Valerio,

Thank you for all that you already have done on the topic.

Do you have precise tasks on which I might help? If not, do you already
considered opening a task board on this topic and start to fill it?

Cheers,
psychoslave

Le 22/02/2021 à 08:15, Valerio Bozzolan via Wikimedia-l a écrit :
> Hello everyone,
>
> Apologies for my TL;DR
>
> Interesting topic. I'm recently working on making ethical surveys more
> and more widespread, starting from here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia/LimeSurvey
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia/LimeSurvey>
>
> Every hand is welcome.
>
> Warm wishes!
>
> > 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.
> --
> [[User:Valerio Bozzan]]
> E-mail sent from Evolution from a random GNU/Linux distribution,
> delivered from my Postfix mailserver.
>
> Have fun with software freedom!
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Oups, sorry for that email, I wanted to respond privately.

The answer to my question seems to have already published in this thread
with https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T275574
<https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T275574>


Le 28/02/2021 à 18:35, Mathieu Lovato Stumpf Guntz a écrit :
>
> Hello Valerio,
>
> Thank you for all that you already have done on the topic.
>
> Do you have precise tasks on which I might help? If not, do you
> already considered opening a task board on this topic and start to
> fill it?
>
> Cheers,
> psychoslave
>
> Le 22/02/2021 à 08:15, Valerio Bozzolan via Wikimedia-l a écrit :
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Apologies for my TL;DR
>>
>> Interesting topic. I'm recently working on making ethical surveys
>> more and more widespread, starting from here:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia/LimeSurvey
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia/LimeSurvey>
>>
>> Every hand is welcome.
>>
>> Warm wishes!
>>
>> > 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.
>> --
>> [[User:Valerio Bozzan]]
>> E-mail sent from Evolution from a random GNU/Linux distribution,
>> delivered from my Postfix mailserver.
>>
>> Have fun with software freedom!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines andhttps://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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 2:11 AM Mathieu Lovato Stumpf Guntz
<psychoslave@culture-libre.org> wrote:

> Now, the WMF by its own word aims to "provide the essential infrastructure for free knowledge".
> Should this statement be taken seriously, the foundation can not be light on the tools it chooses
> to communicate with the community, and what tools it provides to addresses the community
> needs.

Thank you for this excellent reframing, Mathieu. Put in strategic
terms, should the Wikimedia movement invest in independent FLOSS
projects that meaningfully support and enable its mission?

There are many ways Wikimedia could make such an investment. The Open
Technology Fund, for example, operates a program called OTF Red which
funds security audits for open source projects with a network of
service partners. [1] Its focus is different than Wikimedia's (and it
therefore would likely not invest in many projects of concern to
Wikimedians), but there's no reason why Wikimedia could not operate a
similar program for upstream software relevant to its mission, either
because it currently relies on it, or would like to be able to do so
in future.

An investment could also be made in managing relationships with
maintainers of these projects, to help make them aware of funding
opportunities, and to organize the continuous re-evaluation of free
and open source software projects for the purpose of adoption. A
clearly articulated budget for investment in upstream FLOSS projects
-- e.g., USD $1M/year -- would force careful prioritization of
concerns.

In my view, it's important to understand free and open source software
as emancipatory. It enables the movement to liberate itself from a
dependency on Big Tech, and allows movement members everywhere to
adapt software to their needs. This is crucial to address the
inequities the free market unavoidably produces. In concrete terms, to
run surveys in the Global South, it seems incongruous to use
technology developed by Global North software vendors destined to be
forever under their control, impossible to independently localize,
translate, or customize.

In addition to tools like LimeSurvey, I believe that a strategic view
should encompass projects that are used for authorship -- applications
like Krita, Blender, and Inkscape -- as evidenced by metrics on tool
use. [2] Similarly, event management applications like Mobilizon [3]
show great potential to offer a real alternative to Facebook Events.
But that's just my opinion, and I'm curious if the strategic planning
process has yielded an answer to this question that may inform future
investment decisions by WMF and affiliates. It's also possible that
such funding activities are already ongoing, in which case I'd love to
learn more about them.

Warmly,
Erik

[1] https://www.opentech.fund/labs/red-team-lab/
[2] It may be possible to derive such metrics from categories like
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Created_with_Inkscape
[3] https://joinmobilizon.org/

_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

People living in these countries already know which services they can use
and which one they shouldn't. We don't actually expose them to threats by,
instead, we prevent them from using the feature relying upon these services.
Several users probably won't trust these services even if our legal
agreements with relevant providers are fine.

So I think we definitely should start relying upon our internal resources
for this, even a closed source solution hosted by WMF is better than 3rd
party services.

Vito

Il giorno lun 15 feb 2021 alle ore 07:59 Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> ha
scritto:

> I don't live in a country where I need to be worried about the
> anonymity and privacy, but that doesn't prevent me from appreciating that
> there are people in countries like Myanmar, Iran, Syria, and many others
> who need the assurity of privacy to contribute to the movement.
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 14:12, Risker <risker.wp@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 <gnangarra@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, ?ukasz Garczewski <
>>> lukasz.garczewski@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 <faewik@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
>>>>> --
>>>>> faewik@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Z powa?aniem · Kind regards
>>>>
>>>> ?ukasz Garczewski
>>>>
>>>> Dyrektor ds. operacyjnych · Chief Operating Officer
>>>>
>>>> Wikimedia Polska
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> tel: +48 601 827 937
>>>>
>>>> e-mail: lukasz.garczewski@wikimedia.pl
>>>>
>>>> <http://wikimedia.pl>
>>>>
>>>> Wesprzyj woln? wiedz?!
>>>> Przeka? 1% podatku lub wp?a? darowizn? na rzecz Wikipedii
>>>> <https://wikimedia.pl/>
>>>>
>>>> ul. Tuwima 95, pok. 15 ?ód?, Polska
>>>>
>>>> KRS 0000244732
>>>>
>>>> NIP 728-25-97-388
>>>>
>>>> wikimedia.pl
>>>>
>>>> Informacje na temat przetwarzania znajduj? si? w Polityce Prywatno?ci
>>>> <https://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polityka_prywatno%C5%9Bci>. Kontakt:
>>>> rodo@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>

The most recent official WMF survey "Media Matching Screener
Survey"[1] which has terms and conditions published on 26 Feb 2021 by
LMixter (WMF)[2] was promoted on Wikimedia Commons on 1 March 2021 by
MRaish (WMF),[3] has no mechanism for tracking the geographic region
of contributors, as demonstrated by the fact that it can be edited by
open proxies. There are no questions within it or rubric that advise
contributors not to answer any questions if they are writing from
certain countries. The first page of the survey asks "What is your
gender identification?". Every page of the form has a link to "Report
Abuse" which takes the user to an apparent "Google Forms" standard
non-WMF statement about abuse with a long statement about a nudity
policy, and is presumably based on the Privacy Statement[2] a Google
internal report, not a WMF managed one. Page 3 has the question "What
is your country of residence?" but is only asked in the context of
paying the respondent unspecified compensation.

The survey Privacy Statment[2] acts as the terms and conditions for
the survey. It does not match the statement made on 17 February 2021.
Instead, this links to the standard Google Privacy Policy [4] and the
standard Google Terms of Service[5]. These terms contradict the 17
February 2021 WMF statement.

Copying in WMF legal to this email, as the earlier statements which
are asserted to have been reviewed with WMF legal, appear to be untrue
or a misunderstanding for whatever reason. WMF legal may wish to
clarify in their own voice as to whether they support the statement by
the WMF on 17 February 2021, and whether it shall be enforced and
when.

Reminder of WMF previous statement:
"... our Enterprise agreement with Google prevents Google from
accessing the data for their own uses and requires them to inform the
Foundation of any requests for data that they receive prior to
disclosure, allowing us an opportunity to file a legal objection"
"... we are purposefully not asking questions about sexual orientation
or gender in any geographies where same-sex relations or identifying
as transgender are criminalized"

Could the WMF please meet their stated commitment for the protection
of volunteers taking part in surveys and revoke surveys that fail to
meet them, starting with the "Media Matching Screener Survey"?

Links
1. Survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfT_lxMA_88rC8hZ9stzQ-S9b6VwZXcDNFjd4YmWrNHoAx3jQ/viewform
2. Privacy Statement
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Matching_Screener_Survey_Privacy_Statement&action=history
3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Invitation_to_help_us_understand_how_you_work_with_media
4. https://policies.google.com/privacy
5. https://policies.google.com/terms

Thanks,
Fae

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 at 11:20, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A deeper look into the official response by the WMF raises some
> questions about what it means in practice and whether a plain English
> reading of the words is sufficient.
>
> Q1: WMF tested open source solutions
> "[Surveys] [...] we have previously tested and attempted to use open
> source solutions such as LimeSurvey"
>
> Can someone please provide the list of the multiple open source
> solutions that the WMF has tested and the reports of why they were
> each abandoned? This would be incredibly helpful for WMF Affiliates
> who are doing exactly the same thing.
>
> Q2: Legal objections
> "[...] our Enterprise agreement with Google prevents Google from
> accessing the data for their own uses and requires them to inform the
> Foundation of any requests for data that they receive prior to
> disclosure, allowing us an opportunity to file a legal objection.
> [...] we have agreements with other services like Qualtrics"
> Re-reading this, it seems an astonishingly generous and legally
> binding commitment from Google, Qualtrics, and presumably other
> suppliers that have not been named. These suppliers will refuse to
> cooperate with legal investigations, such as US Government agencies,
> or their own internal security threats, before consulting with WMF
> Legal, and will wait for WMF Legal to object.
>
> The question is, can someone please provide a link to a WMF-funded or
> approved survey where this agreement was in place, or is it a
> statement of what might happen in the future?
> Based on my understanding of existing surveys like the still running
> UCoC survey, the WMF terms and conditions and the referenced Google
> terms and conditions are in direct contradiction to this assertion by
> the WMF, and WMF Legal.
>
> Q3: Geographical restriction
> "[...] we are purposefully not asking questions about sexual
> orientation or gender in any geographies where same-sex relations or
> identifying as transgender are criminalized."
>
> Can someone please link to a WMF-funded or approved survey where this
> happened, or is this an ambition for the future that has not happened
> yet?
> In the example of the running UCoC survey (Google docs) this is not in
> place. There is a question about gender identity that has the
> potential to out people as transgender, and there is no technical
> mechanism to filter by geographical location, nor are volunteers asked
> to limit themselves if they live in a list of "hostile" countries.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 22:45, Valerio Bozzolan via Wikimedia-l
> <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > And if anyone has this document in their hands, please notify us here:
> >
> > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T275574
> >
> > On Tue, 2021-02-23 at 08:36 +0000, Fæ wrote:
> > > Could someone provide a link to the discussed security review of
> > > LimeSurvey? I've been unable to find it.
> > > ...
> > > Thanks,
> > > Fae
> > --
> > Valerio Bozz.

--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Unfortunately, I have to report a complete lack of response or
evidence of interest by the WMF taking even the most basic steps to
enforce the commitments that the WMF themselves chose to publish to
this email list.

WMF legal returned an automatic reference number "[Request received] -
24634" on 4 March 2021 (29 days ago). They have not bothered to write
back to recognize the problem or give a "human" response.

I had thought that after the recent progress of dialogue with the
LGBT+ Wikimedia community, that the example problem survey would be
taken down, it was not. Instead, the survey stayed open despite these
complaints through to 23rd March, presumably letting the WMF funding
survey fulfill its objectives, even as it presented some risk to
volunteers that participated. The references to standard Google terms
and conditions were never revised, despite official claims by the WMF
that they did not apply.

These failures and documented false claims by the WMF are
unacceptable, and a massive letdown for other members of WMF staff
that are working incredibly hard to provide better protection and
support for Wikimedian volunteers who represent minority groups.

This case of badly organized surveys has established a basis for
future mistrust, not one of working together or a meaningful
consultation.

Sorry.

Fae

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 16:15, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The most recent official WMF survey "Media Matching Screener
> Survey"[1] which has terms and conditions published on 26 Feb 2021 by
> LMixter (WMF)[2] was promoted on Wikimedia Commons on 1 March 2021 by
> MRaish (WMF),[3] has no mechanism for tracking the geographic region
> of contributors, as demonstrated by the fact that it can be edited by
> open proxies. There are no questions within it or rubric that advise
> contributors not to answer any questions if they are writing from
> certain countries. The first page of the survey asks "What is your
> gender identification?". Every page of the form has a link to "Report
> Abuse" which takes the user to an apparent "Google Forms" standard
> non-WMF statement about abuse with a long statement about a nudity
> policy, and is presumably based on the Privacy Statement[2] a GooglePersonal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
> internal report, not a WMF managed one. Page 3 has the question "What
> is your country of residence?" but is only asked in the context of
> paying the respondent unspecified compensation.
>
> The survey Privacy Statment[2] acts as the terms and conditions for
> the survey. It does not match the statement made on 17 February 2021.
> Instead, this links to the standard Google Privacy Policy [4] and the
> standard Google Terms of Service[5]. These terms contradict the 17
> February 2021 WMF statement.
>
> Copying in WMF legal to this email, as the earlier statements which
> are asserted to have been reviewed with WMF legal, appear to be untrue
> or a misunderstanding for whatever reason. WMF legal may wish to
> clarify in their own voice as to whether they support the statement by
> the WMF on 17 February 2021, and whether it shall be enforced and
> when.
>
> Reminder of WMF previous statement:
> "... our Enterprise agreement with Google prevents Google from
> accessing the data for their own uses and requires them to inform the
> Foundation of any requests for data that they receive prior to
> disclosure, allowing us an opportunity to file a legal objection"
> "... we are purposefully not asking questions about sexual orientation
> or gender in any geographies where same-sex relations or identifying
> as transgender are criminalized"
>
> Could the WMF please meet their stated commitment for the protection
> of volunteers taking part in surveys and revoke surveys that fail to
> meet them, starting with the "Media Matching Screener Survey"?
>
> Links
> 1. Survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfT_lxMA_88rC8hZ9stzQ-S9b6VwZXcDNFjd4YmWrNHoAx3jQ/viewform
> 2. Privacy Statement
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Matching_Screener_Survey_Privacy_Statement&action=history
> 3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Invitation_to_help_us_understand_how_you_work_with_media
> 4. https://policies.google.com/privacy
> 5. https://policies.google.com/terms
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 at 11:20, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > A deeper look into the official response by the WMF raises some
> > questions about what it means in practice and whether a plain English
> > reading of the words is sufficient.
> >
> > Q1: WMF tested open source solutions
> > "[Surveys] [...] we have previously tested and attempted to use open
> > source solutions such as LimeSurvey"
> >
> > Can someone please provide the list of the multiple open source
> > solutions that the WMF has tested and the reports of why they were
> > each abandoned? This would be incredibly helpful for WMF Affiliates
> > who are doing exactly the same thing.
> >
> > Q2: Legal objections
> > "[...] our Enterprise agreement with Google prevents Google from
> > accessing the data for their own uses and requires them to inform the
> > Foundation of any requests for data that they receive prior to
> > disclosure, allowing us an opportunity to file a legal objection.
> > [...] we have agreements with other services like Qualtrics"
> > Re-reading this, it seems an astonishingly generous and legally
> > binding commitment from Google, Qualtrics, and presumably other
> > suppliers that have not been named. These suppliers will refuse to
> > cooperate with legal investigations, such as US Government agencies,
> > or their own internal security threats, before consulting with WMF
> > Legal, and will wait for WMF Legal to object.
> >
> > The question is, can someone please provide a link to a WMF-funded or
> > approved survey where this agreement was in place, or is it a
> > statement of what might happen in the future?
> > Based on my understanding of existing surveys like the still running
> > UCoC survey, the WMF terms and conditions and the referenced Google
> > terms and conditions are in direct contradiction to this assertion by
> > the WMF, and WMF Legal.
> >
> > Q3: Geographical restriction
> > "[...] we are purposefully not asking questions about sexual
> > orientation or gender in any geographies where same-sex relations or
> > identifying as transgender are criminalized."
> >
> > Can someone please link to a WMF-funded or approved survey where this
> > happened, or is this an ambition for the future that has not happened
> > yet?
> > In the example of the running UCoC survey (Google docs) this is not in
> > place. There is a question about gender identity that has the
> > potential to out people as transgender, and there is no technical
> > mechanism to filter by geographical location, nor are volunteers asked
> > to limit themselves if they live in a list of "hostile" countries.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> > --
> > faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 22:45, Valerio Bozzolan via Wikimedia-l
> > <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > And if anyone has this document in their hands, please notify us here:
> > >
> > > https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T275574
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2021-02-23 at 08:36 +0000, Fæ wrote:
> > > > Could someone provide a link to the discussed security review of
> > > > LimeSurvey? I've been unable to find it.
> > > > ...
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Fae
> > > --
> > > Valerio Bozz.
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>