The reason for that policy is exactly what this discussion is all about. If I understand correctly, Philippe is going to do some research into that and will get back to us once he has a clear answer.
Of course when there are good reasons for it, there is nothing against "discriminating" anonymous people - you can't run for the board without giving that up either, for example. But to make that decision you would need more information. Lodewijk 2011/2/26 Pronoein <prono...@gmail.com> > 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 > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
