Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

I would love to see the new project process on Meta come back online. (much of this email is posted to [[m:talk:new project proposals]]) I could use some help in making this happen - we need to start an incubator process for ideas with support, and a separate process for proposing existing project

Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

> You can always make Wikinfo a sister project. > > Fred That would be a rather elegant solution, wouldn't it. At a minimum, recognizing Wikinfo as "Part of the Wikimedia Movement" and incorporating links to it into our controversial articles.And then a next nice step would be if Wikinfo could

Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

>>> Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us >>> have access to. > > As a sort of aside-- everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes > people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their > agenda. > > I've always wondered if we couldn't "peel off' the p

Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

>> Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us >> have access to. As a sort of aside-- everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their agenda. I've always wondered if we couldn't "peel off' the people who ad

[Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

Back in the 1980's BBS sysops validated new users on some of the more abused dial-up BBS systems via snail mail. The person had to provide a real address in order to receive their login password - just as many systems use email addresses today. The big difference between these two mechanisms is

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

I would personally recomend you people to send your questions to RonaldB(the *one and only* person who receive those datas) I'm not dutch, but that system is in place since Jully 2007

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

> Seem to work though. Does it? Where is the evidence for this? I'm not being hasty in forming a firm judgement here - other than to say it doesn't, on the face of it, seem like a good idea for a project to be doing this. > And if the details of the handling of private data is well outlined and c

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

Are you calling me a troll now? 2011/7/10 Peter Gervai > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 23:10, Risker wrote: > > I'm thinking more of whether or not it is retained, and precisely how it > is > > retained. Is it kept in a locked box somewhere? Sitting on someone's > desk? > > Accessible to other indivi

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 23:10, Risker wrote: > I'm thinking more of whether or not it is retained, and precisely how it is > retained. Is it kept in a locked box somewhere? Sitting on someone's desk? > Accessible to other individuals? Which is clearly the good way to ask the questions. It's how t

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 22:53, David Gerard wrote: > On 10 July 2011 21:28, Peter Gervai wrote: > We're not saying it's illegal. He just said that. I did not reply to your statements. :-) > We're saying it's grossly unfit for > Wikimedia and laughs at the privacy policy. Possibly, and you see

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On 10 July 2011 16:28, Peter Gervai wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 19:18, Risker wrote: > > > The next question becomesand what does this "trusted person" do with > the > > information? If it is destroyed promptly, then there's really not much > > point; if it is retained, I'd like to see

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On 10 July 2011 21:28, Peter Gervai wrote: > Well I don't know about your EU but in ours we have a method called > "collecting private data by agreement for a given purpose" and it is > completely legal. If I say to you that you have to provide this and > that private data if you want me to do th

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

Well I guess that people get blocked by good reasons and along with policies, and they would stay blocked. No need to send anything to anyone, they stay blocked, everything's normal. If someone want to have an extreme exception and want to show a good reason to be extremely exeptionaly handled s/h

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 19:18, Risker wrote: > The next question becomesand what does this "trusted person" do with the > information? If it is destroyed promptly, then there's really not much > point; if it is retained, I'd like to see how this meets local and EU > privacy policies. Well I

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:46, Thomas Morton wrote: > This a serious and urgent problem; and the foundation need to look into it > quickly. > > In no circumstances should Wikipedia users be receiving copies of other > people's identity documents - it is a privacy nightmare! It is always pretty ea

[Foundation-l] Putin receives same award as Wikipedia

Hi, Vladimir Putin has been awarded the Quadriga Award, which is "dedicated to all of those whose courage tears down walls and whose commitment builds bridges"[1]. This is the same award Wikipedia received in 2008 (Wikipedia being represented by Jimmy Wales). The award has been forwarded to Wikime

Re: [Foundation-l] List of Wikimedia projects and languages

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 21:40, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > 2011/7/10 Milos Rancic : >> and one in revived language (Manx). > > Ahem. > > The definition of a "revived language" is very controversial, but if > you count them, don't forget Hebrew (120,000+ articles) and Cornish > (2,000+ articles). Bet

Re: [Foundation-l] List of Wikimedia projects and languages

2011/7/10 Milos Rancic : > and one in revived language (Manx). Ahem. The definition of a "revived language" is very controversial, but if you count them, don't forget Hebrew (120,000+ articles) and Cornish (2,000+ articles). -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wor

[Foundation-l] List of Wikimedia projects and languages

This time I've cleaned the list of Wikimedia [content] projects from meta:Special:SiteMatrix [1] and calculated some numbers [2]. So, for statistics, there are: * 270 Wikimedia languages (however, you would see below that the term "language" is not quite precise) * 270 Wikipedias * 146 Wiktionarie

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

The next question becomesand what does this "trusted person" do with the information? If it is destroyed promptly, then there's really not much point; if it is retained, I'd like to see how this meets local and EU privacy policies. I agree pretty much entirely with David Gerard on this one; I'

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On 10 July 2011 18:08, wrote: > Do they have notaries in the Netherlands?  Why not simply ask them to mail a > notarized statement that "I am Foo at such an address and request an ublock > so I may edit as Bar"? I still am not sure if this is something I would > completely endorse, but at leas

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

Do they have notaries in the Netherlands? Why not simply ask them to mail a notarized statement that "I am Foo at such an address and request an ublock so I may edit as Bar"? I still am not sure if this is something I would completely endorse, but at least it would be meaningful and not so easi

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

I'm struggling to see the point of this policy. At first, I assumed it was a way of proving an account isn't a sockpuppet (each sends a copy of their passport, thus proving there are two real people involved - not particularly conclusive proof, given how easy it is to get hold of a scan of someone

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On 10 July 2011 13:20, David Gerard wrote: I was reluctant to given the translation doesn't look very > high-quality, and nuance and implications are the issue, which is why > I was asking Dutch speakers what it actually meant. > > The original Dutch reads: > > "Om gedeblokkeerd te worden, moet(e

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On 10 July 2011 11:48, Andre Engels wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blokkeringsmeldingen#Ontsnappingsclausule >> The Google translation for this one appears to quite definitely be >> trying to imply official status. Does it

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On 10 July 2011 11:50, Thomas Morton wrote: >> Just to be clear: the alternative situation was, and would probably be, >> that >> people who currently can choose to use this clause, would simply be blocked >> forever without a way of getting unblocked. > That's the approach most projects take...

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

> > Just to be clear: the alternative situation was, and would probably be, > that > people who currently can choose to use this clause, would simply be blocked > forever without a way of getting unblocked. > That's the approach most projects take... and anyway copies of identity documents don't p

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard wrote: > The relevant paragraph appears to be > http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpop#Ontsnappingsclausule > > The Google translation is "In order to be unblocked, the person behind > the corresponding IP address is a letter (paper) to a comm

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

Medewerker can mean staff - but literally it just means "cooperator", and it is generally used for anyone editing the encyclopedia on a regular basis. (ie. active community members). It is however open for misinterpretation. Just to be clear: the alternative situation was, and would probably be, t

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

This a serious and urgent problem; and the foundation need to look into it quickly. In no circumstances should Wikipedia users be receiving copies of other people's identity documents - it is a privacy nightmare! Tom On 10 July 2011 11:03, David Gerard wrote: > On 10 July 2011 10:55, Huib Laur

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On 10 July 2011 10:55, Huib Laurens wrote: > Is mentioned in a offiical policy on the Dutch Wikipedia here: > http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpopmisbruik The relevant paragraph appears to be http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpop#Ontsnappingsclausule The Google translation is

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

Hello, Is mentioned in a offiical policy on the Dutch Wikipedia here: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpopmisbruik 2011/7/10, Benjamin Chen : >> >> Gerard Meijssen, 09/07/2011 10:06: >> > If you do not trust the person involved, you are crazy to send him a >> copy of >> > your passpo

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

> > Gerard Meijssen, 09/07/2011 10:06: > > If you do not trust the person involved, you are crazy to send him a > copy of > > your passport. This is a common sense. This policy as it obviously > works.. > > what is really your issue ? > > > > Do we really need a theoretical approach that only

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

Robin McCain, 10/07/2011 07:43: > If I might interject, it seems that the sole purpose of the snail mail > described is to link a physical person to a login name in such a way > that there is some accountability for one's actions that is acceptable > to the organization. Is it really necessary