David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 August 2010 19:11, wrote:
>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/060076.html
>
>
> No detectable project participation. Thanks for your detailed response.
>
Make note - Gerard clueless.
___
foun
On 4 August 2010 19:11, wrote:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/060076.html
No detectable project participation. Thanks for your detailed response.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Un
Shane Simmons wrote:
>> 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, may
David Gerard wrote:
> 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
>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
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
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
> >>> 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 :)
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
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
> >> 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
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 :)
>
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
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.
__
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
> >>
> >>
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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.
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
46 matches
Mail list logo
