Hello, I'm wondering one thing about this new policy applied with some haste, but I could'nt find the answer - the discussion really lengthy -: how will discrimation between those who shared their identity and those who declined will be avoided? Or maybe I should ask if we should discriminate the anonymous volonteers? Why are we putting names and faces on persons, in synthesis? Can someone wrap a summary?
Le 25/02/2011 18:51, Lodewijk a écrit : > Hi Birgitte, > > thank you for finding that link. I know it has been discussed, but was not > able to find the discussions. > > The main reason why I asked for the reasoning behind the policy was not so > much because I was shocked (I was surprised by their choosing of > communications etc, not so much by the choice itself) but rather to be able > to make some estimates. The WMF has been collecting this information for a > long time already of course of stewards and checkusers - and they already > have my ID-copy for example. However, there were talks about identifying to > a chapter, and it also is a very big group to suddenly force to do this > based on only a policy which no employee was able to explain to me the > reasoning behind. If we don't know those reasons, even if we can look it up, > we might want to reconsider the policy as well - because maybe times have > changed and there is no need for it, or a different need. > > It should be clear and transparant why the WMF is collecting this > information, and what they intend to do with it. If they want to be able to > sue people - fine, but then just say that. Then people know what they are up > against, and what the reasoning is. That way alone volunteers can make their > rational decision. But also chapters, because it might have quite some legal > complications if the WMF wants to force a chapter to submit private data > about one of their members because they want to sue this person. > > Therefore I am glad that the staff is taking this back to the board (I > presume) and that there will be a clarification on these points. I do think > that we still need a formal answer from the WMF about why they gather this > information - not because this new influx of to-be-identified people, but > also for the people currently identified for other functions. > > With kind regards, > > Lodewijk > > 2011/2/25 Birgitte SB <birgitte...@yahoo.com> > >> I was looking for something unrelated in the archives and came across an >> email >> [1] that I believe people might find informative wrt to the Identification >> Policy which I believe has had discussion tabled for the moment. It seems >> to be >> the original suggestion that WMF needs some sort of identification policy >> by >> then volunteer/board-member Erik. He was *not* a staff member at the time >> of >> this message, just to be clear, since people seem to be fond of re-framing >> debate along such lines lately. Summary of the context follows (Not >> perfectly >> accurate chronologically speaking): >> >> >> A female leader in the zh.WP community was harassed/threatened by the >> creation >> of an account User:Rape[HerRealName]. Advice was sought in handling the >> situation. There was talk about going to the authorities. There was talk >> about >> which information about the account creator could be given to the >> authorities >> under what circumstances. The existing privacy policy was quoted as "6 >> Where it >> is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the >> Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." . There was talk about it >> essentially being a matter of mature judgment to differentiate between >> derogatory comments, which however reprehensible, do not merit violating a >> user's privacy and threats of violence which would compel the violation of >> privacy in order to attempt to prevent such threats from being carried out. >> The >> idea was suggested that perhaps those with the technical ability to access >> private information need to be identified to WMF so that WMF will know who >> deal >> with in case of abuse. >> >> It seemed to me that many people were quite surprised that the WMF was >> planning >> on recording the identifications of those with access to private >> information, >> instead on the non-recording of this correspondense which I believe has >> been the >> previous practice. It even seemed to me as though some were shocked at the >> implication that WMF may perhaps be looking for legal accountability for >> the >> judgments made by those with this access. So I found it very interesting >> when I >> stumbled across evidence of public discussion of the need to record the >> identities of trusted users in order to be able to deal with any abuse of >> private information by one of the Community-seat Board Members before the >> adoption of the resolution that has become controversial so recently. I >> don't >> mean to suggest that the surprise and shock were insincere, just that they >> seem >> to be rather uninformed as to the genesis of the resolution. It seems to >> me >> that those things were in fact the original intentions behind the >> resolution and >> the staff does have an obligation, however unpopular this obligation may >> have >> become during the time period it has been left unfulfilled, to see to >> recording >> such identities. >> >> Granted there are good reasons the obligation was left unfulfilled before, >> namely the lack of confidence in the WMF Office's technical and >> organizational >> ability to keep these records secure. But once the WMF Office reaches a >> level of >> reliability in organizational and technical competence where that objection >> is >> mitigated, they then must address their obligation to keep identification >> records. Also there are valid concerns over the ambiguity over whether the >> access to which particular tools should qualify people as subject to the >> Identification Resolution. What, however, in hindsight do not appear to be >> valid >> concerns to me are why the WMF "wants" to "change" things, or that the >> decision >> to keep such records was not in given a proper public place for discussion. >> >> >> I can imagine that the staff (who are much in contact with Erik who we >> must >> grant understood the intentions of a resolution he himself suggested the >> seed of >> in 2006) to some degree assumed that the trusted volunteers understood that >> the >> Identification Resolution's ultimate goal was the production of records and >> that >> practice of destroying correspondence was done out of responsibility for >> the >> fact that staff did not feel confident in their current ability to keep >> such >> records. I can also imagine the trusted volunteers who were upset by the >> idea >> of such records being kept to some degree assumed because there has >> sometimes >> been a practice of destroying identification correspondence that this >> practice >> was in fact the agreed upon policy of the Identification Resolution and >> also >> because they could not recall otherwise trusted volunteers to some degree >> assumed the potential policy of actually keeping identification records and >> why >> such records may be needed had never been brought up for public discussion >> until >> after it had been adopted. >> >> Certainly the exact thoughts and communications during this recent >> misunderstanding were rather more varied, less articulated, and altogether >> a >> shade more grey than my speculation. But I am confident that my >> speculations >> are not entirely inaccurate and that they are completely in good faith. >> There >> has recently been a lot of discussion about getting back to the tenet of >> assuming good faith. Here is as a good a place to start that journey as >> any. >> >> On the tabled issue we are still left at least two important questions that >> need >> resolution through an open discussion that succeeds in convincing those >> volunteers who may be affected: >> >> >> *How can volunteers be made be confident in the security of their >> identification >> as records are being collected, recorded, and stored? How can this >> confidence >> be maintained changes occur at WMF? Do these concerns merit the expense of >> security audits? >> >> *What tools that volunteers use in order to do the work of WMF will require >> them >> to become a subject of the Identification Resolution? As new tools are >> developed, who will be responsible for keeping track of their existence and >> seeing that it is determined whether or not those who will be given access >> to >> them will need to become a subject of the Identification Resolution? >> >> Birgitte SB >> >> [1] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/74095#74095 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
