Wikipedia talk:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion

Comments and suggestions
Comments and suggestions are welcome here. Risker (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Admin deletion powers are limited on articles with over 5k edits, which are often high profile articles, and thus targets.--Tznkai (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted and discussed. Thanks.


 * Reference links don't work. Think you need a refs section. Carcharoth (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted and added the section. Thanks.  Risker (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop there, as I'm sure you had plans to cover at least some of this already. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wikimedia Foundation (owner of Wikipedia)" - is "owner" the right phrase here? Might be technically correct but might also be simplistic and miscontrued. You might also want to check with the Foundation to see if this bit about them remaining "largely silent" is accurate (obviously it is your opinion, but you really need something to back up that opinion). They (the WMF) are unlikely to say "yes, we've stayed silent on this issue", so a better approach is to ask them what they've done on this issue (wmf-mailing list?), and document the response (if any). Examples of previous cases and responses or lack of would be good as well, especially as "largely" implies they have done something.
 * "As Wikipedia has grown from a tiny website visited mainly by its editors to one of the most popular websites on the internet accessed daily by millions" - actual numbers and dates would help here, plus maybe making the point that thought the vast majority of the millions of visitors have no interest in breaching privacy of the editors, lots of information is publically available for whoever takes the effort to look for it.
 * "Deletion is appropriate for certain personal attacks and may be an appropriate step in removing a serious privacy breach from the database before an editor with oversight privileges can be reached." - I think the phrase "removing [...] from the database" needs to be rewritten. Deletion certainly doesn't remove anything from the database (it merely removes the revision from public view, while still being available to admins). Even oversighting doesn't remove anything from the database (for what it technically does, you'd have to ask someone else). Developers can directly remove things from the database, but that is hardly ever, ever, done.
 * You might want to address the problems of stuff spreading to mirror sites. Not sure how much of a problem that is, but I presume it can happen. Something about how if someone wants to be sure X item of personal information is no longer available, to conduct a search with an internet search engine to find out if the information has propagated. Though that is more a "how-to" guide, and I think this is more of an essay on, well, "privacy, confidentiality and discretion". :-)
 * Are you doing something about how what an editor says about themselves in on-wiki discussion (and on their user pages), or simply through their editing habits, can easily reveal who they are, or give clues as to who they are? Give examples of the extent to which people talk about themselves, from the schoolkids who, being kids, post contact details (hmm, actually, might be best not to advertise that schoolkids do that - many adults do that as well, so that would be a better example), to those who say a lot about themselves (and those they know), to those who say simply (male, London, early 30s - yes, that's me! - you can say that stating location in a large city like London is fairly anonymous - but saying you live in some small village somewhere is less anonymous), the vague age thing (giving a specific age is likely to lead to birth date data, though even the vague age thing you have to be wary of switching from late 30s to early 40s on your 40th birthday - which would be very silly). Some people reveal their educational level, and some make references to their jobs. Some, of course, are careful to say absolutely nothing at all. The minimum level of information is someone's username and what they've edited. Something that can't be removed is your early edits, which might show geographical location. If anyone is really worried about that, starting a new account is sometimes the best thing.
 * It might also be worth saying that there is anecdotal evidence that openly saying who you are can (in some areas) deflect criticism and anger, and can improve the editing experience. It is, though, definitely a step that should only be taken if you are absolutely sure of what it entails, and it depends on what articles you edit or intend to edit. Some arbitrators edit under their real names. Board members and candidates are required to publically say who they are. Some other posts require identification to the Foundation.
 * Oh, and one final thing. No-one on the internet is ever who they say they are... (apart from those who are who they say they are, if you know what I mean). From those pretending to be a different age or gender, or any other constructed persona, to those who slightly mislead to put people off the track, to really paranoid (and not so paranoid) scenarios. No-one ever said the internet and its online communities were simple places.
 * Oh, and something about photos. Both posting pictures of yourself, to uploading pictures from your holidays, to photos at wiki-meetups. All grist to the mill for the privacy issues.
 * What do you know...I was writing some of these points even as you were writing here. Some good ideas, for certain. I am going to add something under the heading "Discretion" which will talk more about sharing information about oneself and about others. Some other good points above, I will work on this some more tomorrow.  Thanks again.  Risker (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On the checkuser section, you specifically address CU searching for vandals. CU has been used, especially in the controversial areas, to track other sorts of disruption, POV pushing sockpuppetry, or edits that would otherwise be fine if they weren't from an editor banned indefinitely. --Tznkai (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Oversight" is Wikipedia jargon, and ought to be defined near its first occurrence in case a reader is unfamiliar with it. alanyst /talk/ 04:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for your suggestions and positive reinforcement; I have incorporated many of your comments into the essay. I think it is ready for some broader commentary now; let's see what others think, and what I've missed. Risker (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I,Cuttienn am honoured to be here😊😊 Cuttienn (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Misokuhlemakeleni (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

What's left?
This is good stuff. What's left to do here? It seems pretty thorough and evenhanded. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit more about discretion, and some more about relinquishing claims on private information. If all goes well, I will be done tonight, and will invite wider comment. Risker (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On my first read-through I think this is very good; a very accurate statement of things as they are and the challenges faced by the Foundation, functionaries and individual users. I might add a simple rule: if you don't want Wikipedia to know your IP address then don't edit Wikipedia. More thoughts later. Mackensen (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to make things clear
I have written this essay to describe and consolidate the relevant policies as they are today, not to reflect the way I think they should be. Given the opportunity, I would like to see much more stringent requirements for the use of CheckUser, and far more emphasis on personal responsibility right from the time of a user's first edit, and a lot more information given to people when they set up their accounts. I don't think we do a good enough job of these things now, and our weaknesses have led to many of the privacy issues that have cropped up over the years.

I look forward to seeing this essay edited mercilessly, and reading the commentary of those who find this page. Risker (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * much more stringent requirements for the use of CheckUser - I think the checks and balances may need a little look at too, and perhaps some clearer policy statements. Do you have any sense of a sensible way forward for any of this? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this essay be an Information page at this point? –xenotalk 01:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness,., given it seems to be linked from all over the place, I suppose it should be. I think I should spend a bit of time to clean it up and ensure it's up to date; there are a few things that are missing, and a few things that reflect how things used to be. Give me a couple of weeks.  Risker (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Right- I just happened across it being scored #2 by an old project of mine someone restarted. –xenotalk 01:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone must have linked it to a really popular page; the pageviews suddenly jumped in July 2020, and it's getting a rather shocking 24K views a month now. If for no other reason, all those views motivates me to improve this page.  Risker (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The essay was the first thing linked from Special:CreateAccount. It's a good essay, but I think it might scare new users. The pageviews might come back to earth now. –xenotalk 01:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh for pity's sake. This isn't really intended for prospective users, although I appreciate the intention behind the link. Funny thing is that I've been spending most of this evening reviewing IPBE requests from users who are (frequently) unable to create their own accounts (or created them via Meta and then couldn't log in here), and they'll never see the "pseudonym" advice, so many of them aren't doing that. I suspect before the next university term, I should write some advice for university professors whose students live in countries where IPBE would probably be needed, so that they can just give their students the "best" advice. Hmmm. I keep finding new things to do... Risker (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland
I am one of the few users who has proved his real life identity to members of Arbcom by way of producing passport, driving licence and birth certificate.

Bizarrely I am blocked on the basis that I am a sockpuppet of an editor that joined Wikipedia after I did so.

I would be very grateful for any assistance that allows me to contribute usefully to Wikipedia again.

I apologise for not logging in but I am blocked from editing even my own user talk pages.

I am W. Frank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.141.249 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Contact arbcom about this.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Paid editing disclosures and user privacy
I have been editing wikipedia for several years and also work online in unrelated areas. Recently I was called out by a senior editor over a draft article I published on commision almost a year ago which was moved to draftspace due to notability issues. It was the only paid contribution I have ever made and I declared this on both my user page and the article talk page- it took some effort to learn how to do this correctly. I explained this simply to the other editor in question- but this editor demanded I link my user page to the account with which I was hired. This puts me in a very difficult position because: but
 * 1) WP is clear that paid editors must link their accounts.
 * 2) I am a longtime user and respect wikipedia's policies
 * 1) My account contains personal information including the details of important and unrelated work contacts. Normally wikipedia users are not required to disclose personal information about themselves but for me this would require revealing my full name, physical address, professional contacts, possibly my resume- the disclosure would be enormous and available to the entire world. It is also a serious consideration that while Wikipedia respects it's users privacy, not all websites do and many are back-searchable with third party tools- potentially someone could find archived copies of account I made when I was 15.
 * 2) In my case this seems particularly petty, as it relates to a good faith edit, the content does not exist and the matter was finished months ago

I would appreciate the views of other editors on this matter. --Willthewanderer (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Reason this essay has a ton of pageviews
It's linked from MediaWiki:Signupstart. Credit to (via WP:Discord) for sleuthing. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Allowing editors to opt out of private information on XTools.== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Allowing editors to opt out of private information on XTools.. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)