User:209.181.211.69

Got a Wikipedia Account? Vandals Got Your Password (Score:5, Interesting)

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=12669970&sid=151065&tid=158

As an on-again, off-again Wikipedian [wikipedia.org] responsible for countless edits as well as several full articles, I used to be happy to leave administrative matters there to others. Such was my bliss, anyway, until I stumbled upon something extremely troubling--something that forced upon me an awareness of the project's astonishingly careless attitude toward privacy and security. This is the product, apparently, of an obsession with countering vandalism so all-consuming that administrators are even willing to expose unlucky bystanders to identity theft.

This is what I discovered.

A Wikipedia developer, intending to catch sockpuppet accounts (multiple accounts created by the same individual), queried the user database for a list of accounts whose passwords matched passwords belonging to known vandals and trolls. Hoping the results would be useful to others, he published his findings [wikipedia.org] on his user page. Of course, such a list necessarily included anyone who happened to be using, merely by coincidence, the same passwords as the targeted individuals. As a matter of fact, it seems likely that the dragnet caught at least some people by chance alone. But only the people on the list could know for sure.

That in itself sounds unfortunate, but none too dangerous. The horrifying punchline is this: in publishing the results of his query, the developer had effectively given these vandals and trolls a list of usernames with whom they shared a password. And once so equipped, the vitals of each compromised account--including the email address--were just a login away.

Leaking people's passwords, usernames, and email addresses to anyone is damaging enough, let alone to established miscreants.

Anywhere else, a mistake like this would be acknowledged, the offending information removed, and the potential victims notified. Not so on Wikipedia, where the list spawned nothing but a protracted debate [wikipedia.org] and then a vote to remove the page [wikipedia.org]. In a second blow to Wikipedia's reputability--the first being the mistake itself--the vote finally succumbed to addled logic and shortsightedness, as did a motion to restrict its visibility to site administrators. And so the page has remained linked and visible now for almost a full year, a threat to any innocents listed therein and an affront to anyone with an interest in their privacy and personal security.

Imagine if you were on that list. (In fact, maybe you are.) Wouldn't you wonder how it was possible for Wikipedia to expose your password to malicious users for the better part of a year? Wouldn't you marvel that no one had alerted you?

I don't mean to single anyone out here, which is why I've refrained from mentioning the name of the careless developer. The real indictment, in my view, is of the process that:

1. Allowed such an egregious breach of privacy; 2. Failed to correct it, even after it came to attention; 3. Failed to notify those whose passwords had been leaked.

It is my opinion that this incident is only symptomatic of a larger problem: Wikipedia's tradition of policymaking by ad hoc polling. It is also, perhaps, a harbinger of disasters to come. A draft privacy policy [wikimedia.org] offers some hope, but interest in its adoption appears to have stagnated.

For the foreseeable future, then, it would be unwise for anyone to entrust their privacy to the Wikipedia site, when the project's developers and administrators have so clearly demonstrated a severe unfitness to guard it, to say nothing of a callous contempt for the real-world safety of contributors.