(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

Jump to content

User talk:AaronSw: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 17 years ago by AaronSw in topic Questions from Dijxtra
Content deleted Content added
Questions from Dijxtra
AaronSw (talk | contribs)
Line 13: Line 13:


Hello, these are generic questions I decided to submit to every candidate. If you already answered the question in your application, skip it. If you consider any question to be to private for you to answer, feel free to state that and accept my apology for being to intrusive. I also ask you to pardon my English since spellcheckers don't check grammar :-) Here are the questions:
Hello, these are generic questions I decided to submit to every candidate. If you already answered the question in your application, skip it. If you consider any question to be to private for you to answer, feel free to state that and accept my apology for being to intrusive. I also ask you to pardon my English since spellcheckers don't check grammar :-) Here are the questions:

:Let me begin by saying that I've been involved for the fight for Internet freedom and privacy for many years and I'm strenuously opposed to government intervention, buckling under legal threats, and conflicts of interest. So while I can't make unequivocal statements on such matters in advance, I think it's pretty clear that I would support any reasonable proposals along these lines. [[User:AaronSw|AaronSw]] 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


1. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Privacy policy] of Wikimedia Foundation projects states that: "''It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations: 1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement''" If such subpoena occurs, would you agree that Wikimedia Foundation complies ASAP or would you request Foundation to dispute that subpoena in court, [http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39248192,00.htm like Google did in January this year]? Let me remind you that the second option requires money to be spent.
1. [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Privacy policy] of Wikimedia Foundation projects states that: "''It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations: 1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement''" If such subpoena occurs, would you agree that Wikimedia Foundation complies ASAP or would you request Foundation to dispute that subpoena in court, [http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39248192,00.htm like Google did in January this year]? Let me remind you that the second option requires money to be spent.

:I don't think there's a general rule, but I would tend to support challenging a subpoena when following it would invade someone's privacy and there's a reasonable legal case to be made against it. [[User:AaronSw|AaronSw]] 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


2. What is your opinion of WP:OFFICE? Do you think that:
2. What is your opinion of WP:OFFICE? Do you think that:
Line 22: Line 26:
* Community is above '''any''' user and we should think of WP:OFFICE as temporary measure until we find a way for the whole community to act swiftly in cases of libel accusations.
* Community is above '''any''' user and we should think of WP:OFFICE as temporary measure until we find a way for the whole community to act swiftly in cases of libel accusations.
* We should move our servers to jurisdiction which makes it hard for people to sue us for libel.
* We should move our servers to jurisdiction which makes it hard for people to sue us for libel.

:Again, it's hard to make general rules (especially in this case, where many relevant details are not public), but I would tend to support finding community solutions to such concerns rather than giving special power to the Foundation. If Wikipedia is forced to choose between offending someone and omitting important facts, then I think we must choose to offend. [[User:AaronSw|AaronSw]] 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


3. Have you ever been on a paylist of anybody/any organization/any firm connected to any current member of the board? Please understand this question in the broadest sense possible.
3. Have you ever been on a paylist of anybody/any organization/any firm connected to any current member of the board? Please understand this question in the broadest sense possible.

:Not that I can think of. The closest I can think of is that I worked for Creative Commons and Jimmy Wales now sits on its board, but I wasn't really paid for my work and Wales joined the Board after I'd left. [[User:AaronSw|AaronSw]] 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your time, [[en:User:Dijxtra|Dijxtra]] 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, [[en:User:Dijxtra|Dijxtra]] 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:38, 30 August 2006

You can post your questions and comments for me here. (You can also check out the FAQ.) --ASw


Elsewhere: Signpost questions

Board meeting

Hi! The new Board member is expected to attend a Board meeting in Frankfurt 20-23 October, so you are highly expected to aim to keep these dates free or book time off work in case you are successful in your bid to be on the Board. Jon Harald Søby 14:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll definitely be there if elected. AaronSw 15:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Questions from Dijxtra

Hello, these are generic questions I decided to submit to every candidate. If you already answered the question in your application, skip it. If you consider any question to be to private for you to answer, feel free to state that and accept my apology for being to intrusive. I also ask you to pardon my English since spellcheckers don't check grammar :-) Here are the questions:

Let me begin by saying that I've been involved for the fight for Internet freedom and privacy for many years and I'm strenuously opposed to government intervention, buckling under legal threats, and conflicts of interest. So while I can't make unequivocal statements on such matters in advance, I think it's pretty clear that I would support any reasonable proposals along these lines. AaronSw 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

1. Privacy policy of Wikimedia Foundation projects states that: "It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations: 1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement" If such subpoena occurs, would you agree that Wikimedia Foundation complies ASAP or would you request Foundation to dispute that subpoena in court, like Google did in January this year? Let me remind you that the second option requires money to be spent.

I don't think there's a general rule, but I would tend to support challenging a subpoena when following it would invade someone's privacy and there's a reasonable legal case to be made against it. AaronSw 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

2. What is your opinion of WP:OFFICE? Do you think that:

  • It is very good solution to bureaucratisation of Wikipedia, allowing a swift action in cases which need such action. We should widen the circle of people who have the power to use WP:OFFICE.
  • It is very good solution to bureaucratisation of Wikipedia, allowing a swift action in cases which need such action. (And only Danny should use WP:OFFICE privilege)
  • I don't like the thing, but we need it so we don't get sued.
  • Community is above any user and we should think of WP:OFFICE as temporary measure until we find a way for the whole community to act swiftly in cases of libel accusations.
  • We should move our servers to jurisdiction which makes it hard for people to sue us for libel.
Again, it's hard to make general rules (especially in this case, where many relevant details are not public), but I would tend to support finding community solutions to such concerns rather than giving special power to the Foundation. If Wikipedia is forced to choose between offending someone and omitting important facts, then I think we must choose to offend. AaronSw 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

3. Have you ever been on a paylist of anybody/any organization/any firm connected to any current member of the board? Please understand this question in the broadest sense possible.

Not that I can think of. The closest I can think of is that I worked for Creative Commons and Jimmy Wales now sits on its board, but I wasn't really paid for my work and Wales joined the Board after I'd left. AaronSw 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your time, Dijxtra 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply