Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2016
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
IP-adress
The phrase of the privacy policy with IP-adresses "unique number" should be revised, because there is the IPv6 protocol. An IPv6-adress doesn't contain only numbers, but letters from a-f too (hexadecimal). --MrComment4 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Arguably, a base-16 number is still a number, its just a different way of representing it (From a computer perspective, its just a bunch of 1's and 0's. an IPv4 address is 32 1's and 0's, and IPv6 is 128. People use the a-f for IPv6 because otherwise addresses will be really long). Bawolff (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Full protection overkill - contrary to wiki ethos
{{editrequest|auto=1|declined}}
User:Varnent added full protection in response to a bunch of IPs editing the page. This is overkill. Request semi-protection. This isn't the policy; that's on the wmf website. Also the talk header on this page is obsolete. Removed. --Elvey (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why would the page need to be edited? Even if it isn't the policy, it seems useful if it reflects it. --MF-W 07:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- View the page history. There are reasons this page isn't just a redirect to the WMF copy - which it would be if it always reflected it. --Elvey (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looking over the page history - the main reason to edit since the policy was adopted seems to be reversing vandalism. Also - transitions of this policy are linked to from some approved languages - which presents a problem for random edits/vandalism being made without at least a heads up to Wikimedia Foundation Legal - who currently has the ability to make the necessary edits. I would also point out that making an edit here would not change the main document, so you would still need to make a request. I am not sure what other edits have been made by non-admins which would require lifting this protection. Just my two cents as who put protection in place originally. :) --Varnent (talk)(COI) 18:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- All or nearly all the vandalism was by IPs. Links here aren't a problem; if they should link to the WMF version, they can be changed; this shouldn't be a high-traffic page; IMO directing traffic to the right page makes more sense than over-protecting the wrong page. Again, no demonstrated need for full-protection, which Varnent doesn't dispute; it is overkill. It's been fine without it for ages. Request semi-protection. Links to diffs of this document are not impacted by its protection status. --Elvey (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies that my last comment did not provide you with clear enough dispute - let me try again and more directly. It is a page meant to accurately reflect an active legal policy which requires Wikimedia Foundation Legal involvement to be updated properly anyway. It is also a high-traffic page since some non-English project wikis link to Meta-Wiki page instead of Foundation-Wiki page (for translation purposes). Additionally, there remains no stated argument for why this would need to be edited often and without discussion on talk page first. As such, I suggest it remain under full-protection based on it being a legal policy page, its high traffic status (which has resulted in the past in vandalism efforts), need for discussions before changes should be made anyway, and lack of history of changes (or even requested changes) since new policy put in place. The risk around confirmed edit vandalism on such a high traffic page vs. the as yet unstated gains of removing this protection leave me confused what the argument to change it to semi-protect would be. Especially since there have not been any requests to make edits since it was protected, let alone some need created by lingering requests, and several other policy and high-traffic pages are similarly under full protection. Also, MF-W's question remains unanswered as the page history does not imply any reason why this page would be edited by non-admins. I hope that clarifies that I do indeed dispute that there is no demonstrated need for full protection status. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 03:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done No consensus. Change requests have been made. Retained, non-admin changes have been. Discussion closed. Please do not add to this discussion.--Elvey (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies that my last comment did not provide you with clear enough dispute - let me try again and more directly. It is a page meant to accurately reflect an active legal policy which requires Wikimedia Foundation Legal involvement to be updated properly anyway. It is also a high-traffic page since some non-English project wikis link to Meta-Wiki page instead of Foundation-Wiki page (for translation purposes). Additionally, there remains no stated argument for why this would need to be edited often and without discussion on talk page first. As such, I suggest it remain under full-protection based on it being a legal policy page, its high traffic status (which has resulted in the past in vandalism efforts), need for discussions before changes should be made anyway, and lack of history of changes (or even requested changes) since new policy put in place. The risk around confirmed edit vandalism on such a high traffic page vs. the as yet unstated gains of removing this protection leave me confused what the argument to change it to semi-protect would be. Especially since there have not been any requests to make edits since it was protected, let alone some need created by lingering requests, and several other policy and high-traffic pages are similarly under full protection. Also, MF-W's question remains unanswered as the page history does not imply any reason why this page would be edited by non-admins. I hope that clarifies that I do indeed dispute that there is no demonstrated need for full protection status. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 03:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- All or nearly all the vandalism was by IPs. Links here aren't a problem; if they should link to the WMF version, they can be changed; this shouldn't be a high-traffic page; IMO directing traffic to the right page makes more sense than over-protecting the wrong page. Again, no demonstrated need for full-protection, which Varnent doesn't dispute; it is overkill. It's been fine without it for ages. Request semi-protection. Links to diffs of this document are not impacted by its protection status. --Elvey (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Looking over the page history - the main reason to edit since the policy was adopted seems to be reversing vandalism. Also - transitions of this policy are linked to from some approved languages - which presents a problem for random edits/vandalism being made without at least a heads up to Wikimedia Foundation Legal - who currently has the ability to make the necessary edits. I would also point out that making an edit here would not change the main document, so you would still need to make a request. I am not sure what other edits have been made by non-admins which would require lifting this protection. Just my two cents as who put protection in place originally. :) --Varnent (talk)(COI) 18:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- View the page history. There are reasons this page isn't just a redirect to the WMF copy - which it would be if it always reflected it. --Elvey (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Archives incomplete - - 2014 Policy change discussion and implementation hidden
This page doesn't link to discussion pages from see here and here / {{PrivacyPolicy-Invitation}}. Nor does the archive page. They should, permanently.--Elvey (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Out of sync
{{editrequest}}
This page is missing the summary seen currently at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy .
caused by a move? --Elvey (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I see it correctly. It was fixed after that page move. Matiia (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Third party Cookies
I am not aware of any third party cookies we use, maybe that info should be corrected? NRuiz (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)