Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing new "Signpost" issues on this list

A RSS/Atom feed would be great. Thanks, MarianoC.- PS: I know, the page's history's RSS would do, but you'd get every single change to the page instead of the weekly update. --- El mar 3-ago-10, Wikipedia Signpost escribió: > De: Wikipedia Signpost > Asunto: [Foundation-l] Announcing new "

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for Volunteers: Wikimedia Research Committee

Erik, Will critics of less-than-best-practices within the Wikimedia Foundation be considered for invitation to the Wikimedia Research Committee, or is there some sort of loyalty "litmus test" going to be applied? I've sent my self-nomination by private e-mail anyway, but I thought a public clarif

Re: [Foundation-l] Why should Wikimedians meet?

OMG I MET ROBERT I LUV HIM SO is disruptive. "Does anyone know where he was educated? It isn't listed" is potentially helpful. And so on. On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Oliver Keyes wrote: > > Agreed. A good example; on the English Wikipedia, I'm a massive law nerd > > wi

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on the > FBI. > > http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investigation > > You can see the edit in the "Article History". However, at the time of > writing, the seal is still

Re: [Foundation-l] Why should Wikimedians meet?

Oliver Keyes wrote: > Agreed. A good example; on the English Wikipedia, I'm a massive law nerd > with 40-something legal GAs and FAs to my name. I'd never even have studied > the subject if it wasn't for a group of Wikipedians, some of whom have later > helped me with or collaborated on articles. T

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation

On 2 August 2010 23:01, Cary Bass wrote: > I enjoy working with each and every one of you. Likewise. Thanks for everything you've done for us, Cary, and good luck with your studies. AGK ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Un

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

>The issue is the aggregation and collation of the data and making it >available to others. Why would you consider that some one's edit history >is any less personal than what they borrow from the library? ... >Why so? Editing history reveals your interests, maybe your politics, >perhaps your rel

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

masti wrote: > On 08/03/2010 10:38 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: >> Risker wrote: >>> On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas wrote: > >> People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well >> have a static IP address. Besides simply writing down that data is >> aggreg

[Foundation-l] The Signpost – Volume 6 Issue 3 1 – 2 August 2010

News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-02/News_and_notes In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medica

[Foundation-l] Announcing new "Signpost" issues on this list

Hi all, some of you might know the "Signpost", a community-written and community-edited newspaper, based on the English Wikipedia and covering stories, events and reports related to Wikipedia, its sister projects and the Wikimedia Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signp

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

My opinion - Once the information is published (by the WMF) you can do anything you want with it, within the scope of what is legal. dewiki's privacy policy isn't endorsed by the WMF, who run the site, and so I wouldn't consider it binding in any way. They may choose to delete things that violate

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

Indeed. I should have written "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence", because that's who www.dni.gov belongs to, according to its banner. A. --- On Wed, 4/8/10, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > To be fair, the DNI is a relative a > friend of mine and I am pretty sure he > does not persona

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

Another cease-and-desist, perchance? Hopefully the Streisand Effect will take hold and every news organisation reporting this will reproduce the seal in loving, high-definition detail. On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today fro

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

> >>> No ethics here then. > > >> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a > >> Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling? > > > How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer > > your question yes. > > > [citation needed] > > > - d. please :)

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On 3 August 2010 23:23, wrote: > David Gerard wrote: >> On 3 August 2010 22:05,   wrote: >>> No ethics here then. >> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a >> Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling? > How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on the FBI. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investigation You can see the edit in the "Article History". However, at the time of writing, the seal is still included in the "Media" section o

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

been picked up by other news > > agencies from the geeky > > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml > > to the > > > mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of > > which > > > pointing out this delightfully

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

geeky > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml > to the > > mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of > which > > pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for > one discovered this > > story not online but in read

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

John Vandenberg wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:51 AM, wrote: >> Domas Mituzas wrote: >>> Hi, wiki-list! >>> No ethics here then. >>> Excuse me, what is your complaint? >>> >>> I don't really get the point you are trying to make. >>> >>> There are few simple things, but apparently you have

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

> >> No ethics here then. > > > > > > Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a > > Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling? > > > > How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer > your question yes. > Pls, stop. It is no problem (but probab

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

> > The story has now been picked up by other news agencies from the geeky > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml to the > mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of which > pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for one discover

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

lose, though. Do be sure to read the letter: > > > http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pdf > > > - d. > > I can second that - that letter (in the above PDF link) is amusing as it is well argued - A must read. Bravo Mike :-) The story has

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:51 AM, wrote: > Domas Mituzas wrote: >> Hi, wiki-list! >> >>> No ethics here then. >> >> Excuse me, what is your complaint? >> >> I don't really get the point you are trying to make. >> >> There are few simple things, but apparently you have problems to >> grasp them :) >

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: >> 2. As an editor, you are participating in a collaborative process, >> which has quite a lot of meritocracy, so your contribution to the >> project matters. >> > Either an action/edit is good or it is not. Why would previous editing > history make any dif

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

David Gerard wrote: > On 3 August 2010 22:05, wrote: > >> No ethics here then. > > > Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a > Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling? > How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer your question yes. __

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On 3 August 2010 22:05, wrote: > No ethics here then. Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: htt

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Domas Mituzas wrote: > Hi, wiki-list! > >> No ethics here then. > > Excuse me, what is your complaint? > > I don't really get the point you are trying to make. > > There are few simple things, but apparently you have problems to > grasp them :) > > 1. Your readership data is not revealed to th

[Foundation-l] Reminder: RCC Canberra: August 11, 2010

This is just a reminder. :) We'd love to see more people attend. *RecentChangesCamp* is an open conference on online collaborative practices centered around wikis.

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Ray Saintonge wrote: > wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: >> Domas Mituzas wrote: >> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make public statements about a user. >>> we don't ass

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Risker wrote: > On 3 August 2010 16:38, wrote: > >> >> People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well >> have a static IP address. Besides simply writing down that data is >> aggregated does not make it right. If its violation of personal data >> right for Germans why sh

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Hi, wiki-list! > No ethics here then. Excuse me, what is your complaint? I don't really get the point you are trying to make. There are few simple things, but apparently you have problems to grasp them :) 1. Your readership data is not revealed to third parties. Your point "if a UK ISP pub

Re: [Foundation-l] Why should Wikimedians meet?

Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > In 2006 Wikimania in Boston there was a brief, informal meetup of > chapter committee, existing chapters boards members and people thinikg > to establish their own chapters. I don't know if it was the results of > only this meeting but several weeks/months after this meeting

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > Domas Mituzas wrote: > >>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with >>> an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to >>> make public statements about a user. >>> >> we don't associate data with individual, w

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

masti wrote: > On 08/03/2010 10:04 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: >> Domas Mituzas wrote: The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make public statements about a user. >>> >>> we don't a

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On 3 August 2010 16:38, wrote: > Risker wrote: > > On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas wrote: > > > >>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an > >>> individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make > >>> public statements about a user. > >> > >>

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On 08/03/2010 10:38 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > Risker wrote: >> On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas wrote: > People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well > have a static IP address. Besides simply writing down that data is > aggregated does not make it

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On 08/03/2010 10:04 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > Domas Mituzas wrote: >>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with >>> an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to >>> make public statements about a user. >> >> >> we don't associate data with

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Risker wrote: > On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas wrote: > >>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an >>> individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make >>> public statements about a user. >> >> we don't associate data with individual, we asso

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas wrote: > > > The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an > > individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make > > public statements about a user. > > > we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Domas Mituzas wrote: >> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with >> an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to >> make public statements about a user. > > > we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with > pseudonym. And? People use

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an > individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make > public statements about a user. we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with pseudonym. otoh, whatever people talk here about aggreg

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 3 August 2010 19:33, wrote: >> Currently the data collection and processing doesn't follow its >> recommended code of good practice of the UKs DPA and may even be in >> breach of it: >> http://www.ico.gov.uk/ebook/ebook.htm > > That's quite a long document. You could po

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On 3 August 2010 19:33, wrote: > Currently the data collection and processing doesn't follow its > recommended code of good practice of the UKs DPA and may even be in > breach of it: > http://www.ico.gov.uk/ebook/ebook.htm That's quite a long document. You could point out the specific bits being

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Robert Rohde wrote: > Personally, I don't see any intrinsic problem with different wiki > communities having different policies about what kinds of auxiliary > content they will accept (as long as it doesn't interfere with the > basic mission of the project). > > I will say though that trying to c

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Sebastian Moleski wrote: >> > That's not quite what the rule tries to accomplish. Rather, the point is > this: personal data being public does not allow anyone to aggregate such > data in a way such that the result is still tied to individual people (also > called 'profiling'). Why is that so? Bec

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation

+ all of us ! :( On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Belayet Hossain wrote: > I am very shocked. :( > I'll definitely miss you my friend. > > Belayet [[User:Bellayet]] > -- > Belayet Hossain > http://www.facebook.com/bellayet > http://twitter.com/bellayet > http://bellayet.wordpress.com (Bangla) >

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

An'n 03.08.2010 18:58, hett Marcus Buck schreven: >An'n 03.08.2010 09:13, hett emijrp schreven: >> User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User >> contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login >> status. Data on user contributions, such as the t

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

An'n 03.08.2010 09:13, hett emijrp schreven: > User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User > contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login > status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users edited > and the number of edits they

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > That's pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The German > Wikipedia is entitled to create whatever policies it likes as long as > they don't go against global policy (and being more restrictive isn't > against the global privacy policy)

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On 3 August 2010 09:04, James Alexander wrote: > While I disagree with the policy I'm not sure we can say that they aren't > allowed to make it. I think a more restrictive policy would be allowed just > not less restrictive. That's pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The German Wikipedia

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Robert Rohde wrote: > I will say though that trying to control the ways that already public > data might be aggregated is pretty unexpected from my American > viewpoint.   It is also seems pretty clear that aggregation of edit > statistics is perfectly acceptable w

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation

On 08/03/2010 12:01 AM, Cary Bass wrote: > It is with deep regret that I tell you I will be leaving the staff of > the Wikimedia Foundation at the end of December. Hi Cary, this is truly sad news for us! I'm not sure how the foundation is supposed to replace you. (I'm guessing a piece of paperbo

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Sebastian Moleski wrote: > Hi all, > > to give a little insight here: about two years ago the German Wikipedia > community reached consensus that, for the page >(...) > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.

Re: [Foundation-l] Free translation memory

On 1 August 2010 04:08, stevertigo wrote: > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Jimmy O'Regan wrote: >> Open-Tran: http://open-tran.eu/ >> Is something like translatewiki. >> Software here: http://code.google.com/p/open-tran/ >> They also provide their databases for download. >> For running your ow

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

ied with, in the >> words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well done, Mike. > At least he didn't actually reference "Arkell v. Pressdram". He comes close, though. Do be sure to read the letter: http://graphics8.nytimes

Re: [Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

On 3 August 2010 14:31, Nathan wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw > The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal > of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the > words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well do

[Foundation-l] FBI Seal and Wikimedia

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw The FBI sent a cease & desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the words of the New York Times, "a primer on the law." Well done, Mike. ~Nathan ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Banner ads in sitenotice

On 3 August 2010 02:32, Brandon Harris wrote: > On 8/2/2010 6:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote: >> A lot of the complaints I heard regarding the Vector rollout were based in >> the fact that the Wikimedia Usability team has subverted and bastardized the >> term "usability" in an attempt to impose purely ae

Re: [Foundation-l] Why should Wikimedians meet?

Agreed. A good example; on the English Wikipedia, I'm a massive law nerd with 40-something legal GAs and FAs to my name. I'd never even have studied the subject if it wasn't for a group of Wikipedians, some of whom have later helped me with or collaborated on articles. The importance of social inte

Re: [Foundation-l] Banner ads in sitenotice

So if the incentive to improve it will end and the people who contribute will switch over.. you have nothing to complain about, because the quote unquote "imposed" skin will die out. End of problem. On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:55 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Brandon Harris wrote: > > This reads to me lik

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, James Alexander wrote: > That being said I'm not totally sure that basic info like edit counts should > be disallowed since most of them are given by the software itself (and still > is) not to mention the toolserver. Perhaps mor

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Hi! > The privacy policy is clear. Your number of edits is public. And it can be > published in aggregated forms by other uses. And if you edit Wikipedia, you > accept the Privacy Policy. Also, on the top of the Privacy Policy page you > can read: Foundation privacy policy is what kind of informa

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Personally, I don't see any intrinsic problem with different wiki communities having different policies about what kinds of auxiliary content they will accept (as long as it doesn't interfere with the basic mission of the project). I will say though that trying to control the ways that already pub

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Hi all, to give a little insight here: about two years ago the German Wikipedia community reached consensus that, for the page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BZ (which is basically user statistics and ranking), an opt-in is required. That means only those users may be listed there who have

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation

That's shocking, indeed. What about all those pages on WMF sites who say "if you don't know who to ask, ask Cary" and similar things? :-/ Thomas Dalton, 03/08/2010 01:12: > On 2 August 2010 23:51, Nathan wrote: >> Cary, you'll be missed. The WMF absolutely should try to replace you, >> although

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:56 AM, emijrp wrote: > 2010/8/3 Andre Engels > > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp wrote: > > > > > Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you > can > > > see: > > > > > > User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. U

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

2010/8/3 Andre Engels > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp wrote: > > > Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you can > > see: > > > > User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User > > contributions are aggregated according to their registrat

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation

Cary, I will miss you. It is/was/will be a pleasure to work with you. I wish you all the best for your next phase of life. Hope to see you in Haifa :) Raymond. Am 03.08.2010 00:01, schrieb Cary Bass: > It is with deep regret that I tell you I will be leaving the staff of > the Wikimedia Foundat

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp wrote: > Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you can > see: > > User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User > contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login > status. Data on user

[Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings

Hi all; Some days ago I was contacted in my user talk in Spanish Wikipedia about a request for deletion in German Wikipedia.[1] An user opened a request for deletion[2] for an user edits ranking[3] which my bot updates regularly in German Wikipedia (also in many more projects[4][5]). Finally, the