Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/6/5 Neil Harris :
>
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/6/4 Jon :
>>>
>>>
Has apache/proxy level filtering been considered?
>>> Filtering for what? Javascript is executed client-side, ie. after the
>>> page has gone through the apac
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:14 AM, John at Darkstar wrote:
> Its not that it won't be perfect, it simply will not work.
It will in most cases if you don't mind some false positives. False
positives would be acceptable if it's just a warning page that the
admin could click through. Check for anythin
This is in reference to:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-May/051889.html
I would like to thank Michael Bimmler for
steering me through this mailing list. Michael
always addressed me in a polite, professional,
and non-judgmental manner. It was a pleasure to
correspond wi
Hello,
I wasn't subscribed to this list, since I usually try to avoid the
politics around.
I was notified, however, that some interesting claims were made and
some steps taken (again) without any discussion whatsoever.
First, let me tell it here again - as I have told it on a different
list - th
I can understand your frustration, Peter, but perhaps hu.wp could also have
taken a more collaborative approach. If you would like to use a method for
collecting statistics that others will view as violating the privacy policy,
or as presenting risks normally not considered throughout the rest of t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathan wrote:
> I can understand your frustration, Peter, but perhaps hu.wp could also have
> taken a more collaborative approach. If you would like to use a method for
> collecting statistics that others will view as violating the privacy policy,
> or
Virgilio, you simply have not provided or described sufficient evidence to
back up the conclusion that the people who "run" pt.wp are have severe
emotional problems. Such accusations serve only to call your own integrity
into question, which I'm sure you wish to avoid.
It should be noted that most
I'd like to note in the interest of facts that the Huwp stats have been
implemented (without complaint till now, June 2009) since October 2006; the
current version of the privacy policy has been available in English since
October 2008.
I think it might not be very productive to judge the action of
2009/6/5 Peter Gervai
>
> The stats (which have, by surprise, a dedicated domain under th hu
> wikipedia domain) runs on a dedicated server, with nothing else on it.
> Its sole purpose to gather and publish the stats. Basically nobody
> have permission to log in the servers but me, and I since I
effe iets anders wrote:
> 2009/6/5 Peter Gervai
>
>>
>> The stats (which have, by surprise, a dedicated domain under th hu
>> wikipedia domain) runs on a dedicated server, with nothing else on it.
>> Its sole purpose to gather and publish the stats. Basically nobody
>> have permission to log in
Bence Damokos writes:
> I'd like to note in the interest of facts that the Huwp stats have been
> implemented (without complaint till now, June 2009) since October 2006; the
> current version of the privacy policy has been available in English since
> October 2008.
It was implemented in October
bázis: 4134 (20090605)
__
Az üzenetet az ESET Smart Security ellenorizte.
http://www.eset.hu
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> Bence Damokos writes:
>
> > I'd like to note in the interest of facts that the Huwp stats have been
> > implemented (without complaint till now, June 2009) since October 2006;
> the
> > current version of the privacy policy has been available
Mark (Markie) wrote:
> I still fail to see how, at this point (not before when there was no policy)
> this can be considered to be acceptable.
As I understand it, nobody is arguing that it's considered acceptable at
this point. People involved in the Hungarian Wikipedia have been
explaining the b
Nathan writes:
> Others have since discussed more centralised and secure methods for
> providing these statistics via the WMF - this is the ideal outcome, and one
> that might have been achieved earlier had you proposed your method rather
> than simply going ahead alone.
Setting up an off-the-sh
The Wikimedia wikis are, ultimately, private websites, owned and operated by
the Foundation. That the software they run happens to allow millions of
users the ability to make changes to said site is ultimately just fortunate
coincidence: the ability to edit Wikimedia wikis is a privilege, not a
Apologies for this, I'm getting confused between multiple threads on this.
Regards
Mark
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Mark (Markie) wrote:
> > I still fail to see how, at this point (not before when there was no
> policy)
> > this can be considered to be acceptable.
> A
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> As I understand it, nobody is arguing that it's considered acceptable at
> this point.
Peter Gervai seemed to argue exactly that, unless I badly misread him:
> someone from outside seriously interfere with other project
> based on, as it turns
Mark (Markie writes:
> I still fail to see how, at this point (not before when there was no policy)
> this can be considered to be acceptable. IP information etc is still being
> passed to an external server, regardless of who it is being operated by. As
> we can see at http://meta.wikimedia.or
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> Mark (Markie writes:
>
> > I still fail to see how, at this point (not before when there was no
> policy)
> > this can be considered to be acceptable. IP information etc is still
> being
> > passed to an external server, regardless of who it
Michael Snow writes:
> As I understand it, nobody is arguing that it's considered acceptable at
> this point. People involved in the Hungarian Wikipedia have been
> explaining the background, trying to establish that they shouldn't be
> blamed for having this in place. That's understandable as
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> I do argue that it is not in violation of the privacy policy (whether the
> people
> here find it acceptable is another question).
It may be within the letter of the privacy policy. I think that's
entirely arguable, since the policy is so vagu
Tisza Gergő writes:
> I do argue that it is not in violation of the privacy policy (whether
> the people here find it acceptable is another question).
Just to make it clear, I don't think accordance with the privacy policy
automatically entitles one to do something. The PP is a minimum set of
re
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, nobody is arguing that it's considered acceptable at
>> this point.
>>
> Peter Gervai seemed to argue exactly that, unless I badly misread him:
>
>
> And so did Tisza Gergő:
>
Maybe it's ju
Aryeh Gregor writes:
> I believe the major problems with the script are
>
> 1) It sent data to a server not directly controlled by the Wikimedia
> Foundation. No personally identifiable information should be sent in
> bulk to any non-Wikimedia server. Operation of any server hosting
> signifi
Just a few sidenotes now.
2009/6/5 Mark (Markie) :
> There are a few issues with this. Devs have access to logs on WMF servers,
> not random external servers.
This is a good suggestion, basically you say that I should request the
foundation to provide me a server inside WMF with developer acces
This argument - which is effectively that community members should be
considered Wikimedia Foundation staff members - is very brittle. It is
neither sound nor valid. Do yourself a favor and consider the logic of the
other side. It will save you from confusion later when you realize that you
were th
Hello all --
There is an ongoing discussion about a possible global biographies of living
people policy at Meta.[1]
Any input / comments / suggestions / etc. would be welcome on the talk page.
Best --
MZMcBride
pub...@mzmcbride.com
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/BLP
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Peter Gervai wrote:
>> The community cannot decide that Random_user1
>> and Random_user2 etc will agree with the communities view on the stats being
>> passed to an external server.
>
> As you are aware it's not really random user, so what you write is
> more rhetor
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> Tisza Gergő writes:
>> I do argue that it is not in violation of the privacy policy (whether
>> the people here find it acceptable is another question).
>
> Just to make it clear, I don't think accordance with the privacy policy
> automatically
Michael Snow writes:
> Maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but I read those comments primarily as
> a defense against a perceived "prosecution" for allegedly violating the
> privacy policy.
I don't read them that way - rather as saying "This isn't clearly in
violation; it has been working for a long
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Peter said that he could run whatever was being done on an external
> server on a WMF machine that [core] developers have access to. What
> does this have to do with being Foundation staff?
He is trying rationalize his previous behavior by
32 matches
Mail list logo
