IRC/wikipedia/Guidelines/Public logging/Meeting log 20081015
15 Oct 2008 20:30:11< Martinp23> Hi everyone, and thanks for coming. The meeting will start in a few minutes. My intention is that it will be open as far as possible, and we can see if we can get a coherent debate going! If you haven't already, please do look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_guidelines/wikipedia/Public_logging and read the arguments on both sides. This meeting is intended to be an extension of that discussion. Just while we ...
15 Oct 2008 20:30:11< Martinp23> ... take a few mis to settle, please do poke anyone who is online who you think is interested into this channel!
15 Oct 2008 20:30:12< Martinp23> During the next few minutes, could those who want to bring points up for discussion please PM me with them, and I'll use that to structure the debate, along with my own topics.
15 Oct 2008 20:30:16< Martinp23> For those of us worrying about those in inconvenient timezones for this meeting, we do plan to hold another one soonish at a different time of day.
15 Oct 2008 20:30:16< cimon> Live long and prosper.
15 Oct 2008 20:30:20< Martinp23> Final note: this channel is publically logged as of this message, until the end of the meeting. Now, we can get the discussion started in a few minutes :).
15 Oct 2008 20:30:24< evilchristel> Martinp23: baths
15 Oct 2008 20:30:40 * CWii reads
15 Oct 2008 20:30:59-!- JulianC93 [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 20:31:11< Neurolysis> Martinp23 - Not for myself, but how are we going to deal with off topicers?
15 Oct 2008 20:31:19< Martinp23> with teeth.
15 Oct 2008 20:31:23< Mww113> Martinp23: May I suggest setting +i at this point?
15 Oct 2008 20:31:25< Martinp23> (we'll see)
15 Oct 2008 20:31:25< CWii> JulianC93: Just in time, the meeting is just about to begin.
15 Oct 2008 20:31:26< Neurolysis> Mhm.
15 Oct 2008 20:31:27< Martinp23> no.
15 Oct 2008 20:31:28< Dusti> num num num
15 Oct 2008 20:31:37 * Mww113 is about to do a .names flood
15 Oct 2008 20:31:44< CWii> Don't please.
15 Oct 2008 20:31:57-!- ChanServ changed the topic of #wikipedia-meetings to: Meeting in progress. Please have a quick read of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_guidelines/wikipedia/Public_logging and join in.
15 Oct 2008 20:31:58< CWii> Martinp23: Will there be timestamps in the logs for the meeting?
15 Oct 2008 20:32:05< iMatthew> I just invited some on other channels
15 Oct 2008 20:32:11< JulianC93> CWii: Thanks :)
15 Oct 2008 20:32:13< Martinp23> CWii: of course. :)
15 Oct 2008 20:32:15[Users #wikipedia-meetings]
15 Oct 2008 20:32:15[@ChanServ ] [ cimon ] [ iMatthew ] [ MZMcBride ] [ Rinn ] [ worby ]
15 Oct 2008 20:32:15[ [garden] ] [ CWii ] [ Ironholds ] [ Neskaya ] [ Rjd|away ] [ WPossum ]
15 Oct 2008 20:32:15[ [roux] ] [ Dusti ] [ JohnReaves ] [ Neurolysis ] [ skenmy ] [ Yamakiri]
15 Oct 2008 20:32:15[ agk-away ] [ eptalon ] [ JulianC93 ] [ PeterSymonds] [ Thehelpfulone]
15 Oct 2008 20:32:15[ Brownout ] [ evilchristel ] [ lfaraone ] [ Platonides ] [ Tjalling ]
15 Oct 2008 20:32:15[ CharlotteWebb] [ Farosdaughter] [ Martinp23 ] [ publunch ] [ tombom ]
15 Oct 2008 20:32:15[ chb ] [ FrancoGG ] [ MBisanz|away] [ Qst ] [ werdan7 ]
15 Oct 2008 20:32:15[ Chenzw2 ] [ Fritzpoll ] [ Mww113 ] [ Reedy ] [ wimt ]
15 Oct 2008 20:32:15-!- Irssi: #wikipedia-meetings: Total of 43 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 42 normal]
15 Oct 2008 20:32:20< Mww113> CWii: If you insist, but it would be one line
15 Oct 2008 20:32:28< iMatthew> how long with this meeting last?
15 Oct 2008 20:32:37< JohnReaves> 27.87 minutes
15 Oct 2008 20:32:45< iMatthew> ok ;)
15 Oct 2008 20:32:55< Neurolysis> As long as a thread of string.
15 Oct 2008 20:33:16< Martinp23> No topics sent to me yet. Perhaps those who are talking here now might like to think of some things and pm me?
15 Oct 2008 20:33:42< Yamakiri> Mww113: instead, do a /notice
15 Oct 2008 20:33:52< Mww113> Yamakiri: Better idea
15 Oct 2008 20:34:30-Mww113:#wikipedia-meetings- Courtesy reminder to all users idle or away in the channel. We are starting now.
15 Oct 2008 20:35:01-!- kwsn [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 20:35:07< tombom> i was just thinking about how evidence of things occuring on irc being published on-wiki
15 Oct 2008 20:35:08-!- kwsn [*hostmask*] has left #wikipedia-meetings []
15 Oct 2008 20:35:09-!- Aqwis [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 20:35:20< tombom> if you have any idea what i was just trying to say
15 Oct 2008 20:35:28-!- Submarine [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 20:35:35< Neurolysis> You mean how they could be used as evidence for things?
15 Oct 2008 20:35:42< tombom> yes
15 Oct 2008 20:35:43< Neurolysis> Or evidence of their own existence?
15 Oct 2008 20:35:50< Rinn> IRC doesn't exist.
15 Oct 2008 20:35:53-!- seanw [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 20:35:55< seanw> Evening all.
15 Oct 2008 20:35:55< Neurolysis> Well, I suppose a central log would be appropriate
15 Oct 2008 20:35:57< seanw> Sorry I'm late.
15 Oct 2008 20:35:58< Martinp23> About time.
15 Oct 2008 20:35:59< Martinp23> :p
15 Oct 2008 20:36:01< tombom> evidence of things happening on irc, i mean
15 Oct 2008 20:36:04< Mww113> seanw: Done with your bath?
15 Oct 2008 20:36:05< Martinp23> we've not really started, seanw.
15 Oct 2008 20:36:09< seanw> I'm in bed and very tired so don't want to stay long :(
15 Oct 2008 20:36:13< seanw> Let me do awaylog.
15 Oct 2008 20:36:18 * Dusti thinks that its not really a huge issue, but if someone would like to publicly log a channel, then they should be allowed. This often comes in handy if a dispute comes up over what a user stated in a previous discussion
15 Oct 2008 20:36:18< seanw> Mww113, had a shower tonight.
15 Oct 2008 20:36:23< Mww113> ;)
15 Oct 2008 20:36:25< evilchristel> seanw: er, dont (do away log)
15 Oct 2008 20:36:28< Yamakiri> tombom: it would be horrible to put them on wiki :S
15 Oct 2008 20:36:33< Yamakiri> they get huuuuuge
15 Oct 2008 20:36:35< seanw> o_O
15 Oct 2008 20:36:39< seanw> Why did christel end up in this?
15 Oct 2008 20:36:45< tombom> i didn't say to put logs on-wiki...
15 Oct 2008 20:36:45< tombom> :S
15 Oct 2008 20:36:47< Martinp23> Right, the PM flood towards me has stopped now.
15 Oct 2008 20:36:52< Martinp23> So we can get going.
15 Oct 2008 20:36:56< Platonides> Yamakiri, not just huge but mostly nonsense
15 Oct 2008 20:37:00< evilchristel> seanw: so i can tell you all why public logging is evil and the work of the devil, duh :)
15 Oct 2008 20:37:02< CWii> I think they should be put in a seperate Web System.
15 Oct 2008 20:37:09< Martinp23> First question, "why should we change form the status quo"?
15 Oct 2008 20:37:10< Martinp23> Thoughts?
15 Oct 2008 20:37:12< CWii> Not on wiki.
15 Oct 2008 20:37:21< Yamakiri> Platonides: I run a 5 user network. In one month it generated a fully 2 gigabytes of data
15 Oct 2008 20:37:26< Neurolysis> Why shouldn't we change from the status quo?
15 Oct 2008 20:37:26-!- rw_na [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 20:37:27 * cimon Is going to have a shower after this meeting. Or at a minimum, wash my hands.
15 Oct 2008 20:37:33< tombom> i meant "using irc logs as evidence for issues on-wiki", although only in certain cases
15 Oct 2008 20:37:37< seanw> evilchristel, agreed, but a policy against it is so unenforcable it';s just silly.
15 Oct 2008 20:37:52< Mww113> Martinp23: I really don't think there is a need for logging in #wikipedia , how would this possibly benifit the project?
15 Oct 2008 20:37:57< Neurolysis> Just because something has happened for a period of time does not mean it is the best course of action. Hence why we are here.
15 Oct 2008 20:38:00< MZMcBride> So is a policy against music pirating.
15 Oct 2008 20:38:04< wimt> That's a separate issue - just because a policy isn't 100% enforceable does not make it pointless
15 Oct 2008 20:38:10< Mww113> we have no problems with the status quo
15 Oct 2008 20:38:14< Yamakiri> I do not feel there is a need either.
15 Oct 2008 20:38:20< iMatthew> nor do i
15 Oct 2008 20:38:20< Mww113> so why should we "fix it if its not broken"?
15 Oct 2008 20:38:20< JohnReaves> Mww113:IRC is affiliated with the project
15 Oct 2008 20:38:24< CWii> Martinp23: Why don't you use /nnotice for the questions? ;)
15 Oct 2008 20:38:25< JohnReaves> *isn't
15 Oct 2008 20:38:26< Neurolysis> Mww113 - We have plenty of problems with the status quo
15 Oct 2008 20:38:28< Martinp23> Is it broken?
15 Oct 2008 20:38:35< Mww113> Neurolysis: such as?
15 Oct 2008 20:38:42< [garden]> Right, well, does public logging include quoting 3 or 4 lines on wikipedia?
15 Oct 2008 20:38:45< skenmy> I would love to be able to read logs of the channel when I am not present.
15 Oct 2008 20:38:51-!- mode/#wikipedia-meetings [-c] by ChanServ
15 Oct 2008 20:39:04< skenmy> [garden], of course it does.
15 Oct 2008 20:39:06< JulianC93> I agree with skenmy
15 Oct 2008 20:39:12< [garden]> Right then.
15 Oct 2008 20:39:15< Neurolysis> Mww113 - Well, not just regarding this, but all sorts of things on wiki. I'm talking generally.
15 Oct 2008 20:39:15< Martinp23> Well, the current rule is that no logs can be published without the full consent of all involved.
15 Oct 2008 20:39:23< [garden]> I think that should be permitted
15 Oct 2008 20:39:28< Dusti> I'll just state it again
15 Oct 2008 20:39:29< Martinp23> skenmy: would you really?
15 Oct 2008 20:39:33 * Dusti thinks that its not really a huge issue, but if someone would like to publicly log a channel, then they should be allowed. This often comes in handy if a dispute comes up over what a user stated in a previous discussion
15 Oct 2008 20:39:35< skenmy> Yes, yes I would
15 Oct 2008 20:39:56< [garden]> If a user is harrassing you in IRC it would be good to be able to quote what they've said.
15 Oct 2008 20:39:56< Martinp23> Why?
15 Oct 2008 20:39:57< Dusti> and also allows a user to be included in on a discussion if he/she missed but was supposed to attend
15 Oct 2008 20:39:59< Mww113> Neurolysis: Logging on wiki would just cause drama filled sessions on wiki. IRC is not wiki and it should not be treated like an offical project.
15 Oct 2008 20:39:59< Neurolysis> I think it should be permitted in good faith. If a user cannot see why others would object, I don't see why it should be restricted.
15 Oct 2008 20:40:11< Martinp23> [garden]: Would that make IRC actions enforceable onwiki though?
15 Oct 2008 20:40:17< CWii> [garden]: That's a good point
15 Oct 2008 20:40:18< Mww113> How would you like it if you got blocked for saying somthing on IRC?
15 Oct 2008 20:40:23< tombom> Martinp23: i'm not sure i understand
15 Oct 2008 20:40:25< evilchristel> [garden]: so, it would be a good way to perform a public hanging?
15 Oct 2008 20:40:25< skenmy> whether we like it or not, IRC is used as a means of quick, efficient communication between some parties in a discussion (note: *not all*). If public logs were made available, the discussion is easily transferrable to wiki-based discussion forums, where it can be developed further.
15 Oct 2008 20:40:26< Martinp23> (which blurs the irc is not wiki line)
15 Oct 2008 20:40:26< JohnReaves> Dusti:Issue is, whether or not to allow anyone to log or whether to have an officially sanctioned bot and logs
15 Oct 2008 20:40:27< wimt> Dusti, that kind of suggests there are pre-determined organised discussions occurring in #wikipedia and/or -en
15 Oct 2008 20:40:34< wimt> Which isn't really the reality I'd contend
15 Oct 2008 20:40:36< [garden]> a public hanging?!
15 Oct 2008 20:40:40< Mww113> [garden]: That is what the /ignore command was created for.
15 Oct 2008 20:40:42-!- Alexfusco5|Away [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 20:40:42< evilchristel> but wouldnt really serve much other purpose than being able to point the finger at someone?
15 Oct 2008 20:40:46< Dusti> wimt, sometimes there may be
15 Oct 2008 20:40:47-!- Alexfusco5|Away is now known as Alexfusco5
15 Oct 2008 20:40:50< tombom> irc is often used with taking actions on wiki
15 Oct 2008 20:40:54< Mww113> I agree with evilchristel
15 Oct 2008 20:40:55< iMatthew> [garden] - I agree with you, i think that if its a matter of bullying or attacking to no ends, then the quote should be used as evidence of the user's actions
15 Oct 2008 20:40:58< Neurolysis> [garden] - Whilst people can be blocked for offsite actions, is IRC really a good place to find evidence?
15 Oct 2008 20:41:13< Martinp23> [garden]: Quotes from IRC can easily be taken out of context. Also, do you envisage a situation where ArbCom can sanction a user for IRC actions?
15 Oct 2008 20:41:16< CWii> If we can log thngs, like disscussions of an article we can show it to users who don't use IRC.
15 Oct 2008 20:41:16< [garden]> Yes, what iMatthew said.
15 Oct 2008 20:41:21< Neurolysis> But how can you prove that the user is who they state to be on IRC, or that it is not out of context
15 Oct 2008 20:41:21< Mww113> IRC should be a place to speak freely about the project without the fear of on-wiki action
15 Oct 2008 20:41:44< skenmy> -oftopic should be the place to talk freely
15 Oct 2008 20:41:46< Neurolysis> Mww113 - How about #wikipedia-logged and #wikipedia-nolog ?
15 Oct 2008 20:41:48< skenmy> *offtopic
15 Oct 2008 20:41:57< [garden]> Martinp23: obviously, if they were harrassing a user on IRC chances are they'd be doing the same on-wiki
15 Oct 2008 20:42:04< Mww113> Neurolysis: That would be inconvenient.
15 Oct 2008 20:42:04< iMatthew> Mww113 - that's true - but it's definitely not the place for bullying and attacking
15 Oct 2008 20:42:07-!- Fritzpoll [*hostmask*] has left #wikipedia-meetings []
15 Oct 2008 20:42:11< tombom> i have seen admin actions taken based on irc before, including somebody blocked because a sockpuppetteer had used their irc account
15 Oct 2008 20:42:13< Thehelpfulone> Neurolysis: that's going to be a bit annoying, people get annoyed with so many channels as it is..
15 Oct 2008 20:42:18< seanw> Epic wireless fail.
15 Oct 2008 20:42:19< Martinp23> [garden]: Far from the truth. There have been arbcases about offhand remarks in -en-admins in the past.
15 Oct 2008 20:42:19< Alexfusco5> Mww113: thanks for the reminder :p
15 Oct 2008 20:42:20< lfaraone> Should we have -admin loged?
15 Oct 2008 20:42:25< iMatthew> like [garden] said - if they do it here - who's to say they won't do it on Wikipedia
15 Oct 2008 20:42:25< wimt> Why need IRC be logged for on wiki purposes, when clearly other similar mediums of communication aren't? What sets IRC apart from, say, WP editors emailing each other?
15 Oct 2008 20:42:26< lfaraone> (I say no)
15 Oct 2008 20:42:26< Thehelpfulone> lfaraone: no
15 Oct 2008 20:42:31< tombom> Martinp23: hmmm
15 Oct 2008 20:42:31< Alexfusco5> nah
15 Oct 2008 20:42:33< Martinp23> lfaraone: that is out of the scope of this debate.
15 Oct 2008 20:42:34< Mww113> lfaraone: That would defeat its purpose
15 Oct 2008 20:42:45< evilchristel> Mww113: imo public logging would result in less genuine use of the channel, it would scare a lot of people away from feeling comfortable talking freely
15 Oct 2008 20:42:50< Alexfusco5> wimt: why not just allow it to be logged/
15 Oct 2008 20:42:52< Alexfusco5> * ?
15 Oct 2008 20:42:55< [garden]> Martinp23: oh.
15 Oct 2008 20:42:57< [garden]> well
15 Oct 2008 20:42:58< Alexfusco5> how would that hurt
15 Oct 2008 20:42:59< tombom> wimt: yes, i think this is another thing, that if you publically log irc people will just go somewhere even more private
15 Oct 2008 20:42:59< skenmy> wimt: because IRC is not private communication
15 Oct 2008 20:43:07< Mww113> I concur with you evilchristel.
15 Oct 2008 20:43:10< skenmy> it is a public service
15 Oct 2008 20:43:11< Martinp23> Alexfusco5: that's what this whole disucssion is about, and you might read other peoples' comments and the meta page about that :)
15 Oct 2008 20:43:14< wimt> Alexfusco5, well I can give plenty of reasons for that, but firstly I want to consider the reasons to log it
15 Oct 2008 20:43:18< Neurolysis> Just to let you know, many people log IRC off wiki, it's not like it's a massive thing
15 Oct 2008 20:43:20< evilchristel> and itd encourage trolls desperate to get their search engine hits up to target you more
15 Oct 2008 20:43:23 * Thehelpfulone agrees with evilchristel
15 Oct 2008 20:43:34< Martinp23> Neurolysis: well, this is the distinction being private and public logs.
15 Oct 2008 20:43:35< wimt> tombom, indeed, I think that's very possible
15 Oct 2008 20:43:39< [garden]> evilchristel speaks true for me in a way.
15 Oct 2008 20:43:40< eptalon> skenmy: you wont find "private communication" outside strongly crypted mail messages.
15 Oct 2008 20:43:42< Neurolysis> Wikipedia Watch will no doubt post logs again sometime
15 Oct 2008 20:43:43< Mww113> IRC should be a place to be more casual
15 Oct 2008 20:43:47< wimt> tombom, either other channels on IRC or other places altogether
15 Oct 2008 20:43:47< skenmy> evilchristel, NoFollow and develop our own internal search
15 Oct 2008 20:43:52< [garden]> I can see clear advantages and clear disadvantage
15 Oct 2008 20:43:54< [garden]> s
15 Oct 2008 20:43:55< Mww113> if we log it, then everyone has to be serious.
15 Oct 2008 20:43:57< skenmy> eptalon, that's just being paranoid, now
15 Oct 2008 20:43:58< Martinp23> This would be a MASSIVE tool for people like Brandt, I'd fear.
15 Oct 2008 20:44:02< Martinp23> We'd be doing his job for him.
15 Oct 2008 20:44:06< JulianC93> Mww113: Not necessarily
15 Oct 2008 20:44:08< wimt> skenmy, it's not private, agreed, but that doesn't mean everything everyone says has to be permanently archived on the web
15 Oct 2008 20:44:09< iMatthew> Mww113 - yes more casual - but not harrasing
15 Oct 2008 20:44:13< Aqwis> and i thought "people like brandt" already had logs.
15 Oct 2008 20:44:23< Neurolysis> Martinp23 - Doesn't worry me, he's good enough at doing it himself, I don't really mind how he gets it
15 Oct 2008 20:44:23< tombom> Martinp23: but there's not exactly a huge barrier to public logging
15 Oct 2008 20:44:26< tombom> anybody can do i
15 Oct 2008 20:44:27< Mww113> Aqwis: Only when he was online
15 Oct 2008 20:44:27< tombom> t
15 Oct 2008 20:44:29< eptalon> skenmy: and even then your porvider gets the metadata.
15 Oct 2008 20:44:31< JohnReaves> Having an official log would be great when we situations like we have had with Brandt
15 Oct 2008 20:44:33< Martinp23> well they don't.
15 Oct 2008 20:44:38< Martinp23> Shows a bit of trust I suppose.
15 Oct 2008 20:44:39< Aqwis> Mww113, i'm not saying he logs the channels personally
15 Oct 2008 20:44:45< skenmy> wimt - so we deny the public a service because of a bit of paranoia? seems rather counter-intuitive to the aims of the foundation, to me.
15 Oct 2008 20:44:49< JohnReaves> It'd make it easier to cross-check for fake logs
15 Oct 2008 20:44:55< seanw> Martinp23, wasn't wmfgcbot supposed to do private logging? Does it at present?
15 Oct 2008 20:45:02< Neurolysis> Martinp23 - Don't you think that demonstrating the want to release logs would indicate transparency for people like Brandt?
15 Oct 2008 20:45:08< iMatthew> what about having public logging only available for 'crats to see in extreme cases on Wikipedia
15 Oct 2008 20:45:11< wimt> skenmy, it's not really paranoia - we've seen issues in the past surrounding public logs
15 Oct 2008 20:45:19< Thehelpfulone> seanw: wmfgcbot doesn't seem to be in many channels anyway..
15 Oct 2008 20:45:20< skenmy> wimt: such as?
15 Oct 2008 20:45:28< Martinp23> skenmy: we're not denying the public a service at all.
15 Oct 2008 20:45:28< Mww113> Besides, say we did have public logs
15 Oct 2008 20:45:33< eptalon> Do you not see a possible privacy issue with public logging?
15 Oct 2008 20:45:34< Mww113> how long would we keep them?
15 Oct 2008 20:45:37< evilchristel> skenmy: see, i always thought wikimedia was all for free flow of information, thus i cant grasp how you consider an approach in which you make your users too uncomfortable to speak freely
15 Oct 2008 20:45:42< Mww113> who would keep them?
15 Oct 2008 20:45:43< Martinp23> seanw: For certain channels, yes, and no.
15 Oct 2008 20:45:45< Neurolysis> eptalon - no, as long as IPs aren't icluded
15 Oct 2008 20:45:46< Rinn> If we have too many public logs we'll have to get a public wheelbarrow to move them all.
15 Oct 2008 20:45:49< MZMcBride> What happens when personal information is in the logs?
15 Oct 2008 20:45:52< MZMcBride> Or libel?
15 Oct 2008 20:45:52< Martinp23> seanw: also, turn your awayspam off please.
15 Oct 2008 20:45:54< wimt> skenmy, well plenty of arguments on wiki about who may or may not have said what and acted upon IRC discussions - that could only get more fierce if the channel logs were available for all to pick at
15 Oct 2008 20:45:55< Mww113> who would be able to store the massive ammount of data.
15 Oct 2008 20:45:56< MZMcBride> Or defamatory content?
15 Oct 2008 20:46:00< skenmy> free flow of information - so we can do as we wish the information passed through our affiliated services :)
15 Oct 2008 20:46:03< Neurolysis> MZMcBride - I once managed to leak my pass on IRC, I'd hope that they would be moderated
15 Oct 2008 20:46:04< seanw> Sorry, it's cos I keep disconnecting.
15 Oct 2008 20:46:04< skenmy> It can be read in both ways
15 Oct 2008 20:46:07< tombom> evilchristel: uh, what about the free flow of logs
15 Oct 2008 20:46:10< eptalon> Neurolysis: except for all the uncloaked users?
15 Oct 2008 20:46:11< seanw> Martinp23, can it be coded in easily enough?
15 Oct 2008 20:46:12< wimt> skenmy, and we know Brandt has used IRC logs to find out and publish personal info about people
15 Oct 2008 20:46:13< JohnReaves> MZMcBride:It gets removed?
15 Oct 2008 20:46:14< Rinn> MZMcBride: The same thing that happens to everything said *in a public forum*.
15 Oct 2008 20:46:17< iMatthew> what about having public logging only available for 'crats to see in extreme cases on Wikipedia
15 Oct 2008 20:46:20 * Mww113 is uncloaked
15 Oct 2008 20:46:21< MZMcBride> JohnReaves: By whom? Through a process?
15 Oct 2008 20:46:29< MZMcBride> And what gets removed and what doesn't?
15 Oct 2008 20:46:30< Neurolysis> eptalon - I'm uncloaked and I really don't care, I mean just include nicks
15 Oct 2008 20:46:31< Mww113> I don't want my ip being handed to the public
15 Oct 2008 20:46:34< tombom> Neurolysis: change your password. thinking "oh, it's not publically logged so it's private" is very dangerous
15 Oct 2008 20:46:36< Martinp23> Neurolysis: perhaps, but it also makes him job of hiveminding people a bit easier.
15 Oct 2008 20:46:44< JohnReaves> Uhg...process
15 Oct 2008 20:46:45< Neurolysis> tombom - I did it at the time
15 Oct 2008 20:46:45< Yamakiri> wimt: that's why I propose we censor IP addresses etc
15 Oct 2008 20:46:47< wimt> Which is why I suggested on wiki, that if we were to log it, we would be better doing it ourselves and still disallowing others
15 Oct 2008 20:46:51< MZMcBride> And at what point is it history revisionism?
15 Oct 2008 20:46:52< JohnReaves> MZMcBride:Whoever has access to the logs
15 Oct 2008 20:46:55< evilchristel> MZMcBride: thats certainly one of the bigger issues, it does suck a bit to say have some dimwit post your address or telephone number on irc in a fit of anger to then have it archived and spread by the web as well
15 Oct 2008 20:46:55< JohnReaves> probably ops
15 Oct 2008 20:47:02< wimt> But that wouldn't stop others trying to log it to get IPs
15 Oct 2008 20:47:07< [garden]> hm, that's a good point actually.
15 Oct 2008 20:47:11< wimt> So we wouldn't really gain much in that sense
15 Oct 2008 20:47:12< skenmy> I am more than willing to volunteer to do this in-house with all manner of blocking facilities embedded
15 Oct 2008 20:47:13< eptalon> Neurolysis: I am also uncloaked, but unlogged IRC has helped me deal with long-term vandals, and restore them to good standing.
15 Oct 2008 20:47:14< Mww113> how would it be logged?
15 Oct 2008 20:47:14< Thehelpfulone> even if we did allow people to view logs, removing ips and personal data is slow and long process...
15 Oct 2008 20:47:15< Mww113> by not?
15 Oct 2008 20:47:17< Mww113> *bot
15 Oct 2008 20:47:24< Yamakiri> I think that if we do log (a scenario I hope doesn't happen ;-) ) we should have a place to official request removal of content
15 Oct 2008 20:47:25< Neurolysis> eptalon - Care to elaborate?
15 Oct 2008 20:47:26< Alexfusco5> Mww113: or by a trusted user
15 Oct 2008 20:47:31< MZMcBride> You also the issue of impersonation, no?
15 Oct 2008 20:47:36< MZMcBride> Have. *
15 Oct 2008 20:47:40< iMatthew> guys - > what about having public logging only available for 'crats to see in extreme cases like harassing?
15 Oct 2008 20:47:46< Mww113> Alexfusco5: I dissagree with any trusted user having sole access to the logs
15 Oct 2008 20:47:48< JohnReaves> Thehelpfulone:Can't logging setting be configured to not even record things like IPS?
15 Oct 2008 20:47:49< MZMcBride> iMatthew: 'crats?
15 Oct 2008 20:47:53-!- lfaraone [*hostmask*] has left #wikipedia-meetings []
15 Oct 2008 20:47:53< Yamakiri> iMatthew: IRC isn't Wikipedia
15 Oct 2008 20:47:53< skenmy> I appreciate that it cannot just be done willy-nilly, public logs everything in the open, search by Google, etc
15 Oct 2008 20:47:54< iMatthew> yeah
15 Oct 2008 20:47:54< wimt> Thehelpfulone, well IPs could be automated, but people accidentally revealing personal info (which absolutely happens) is a real issue, yes
15 Oct 2008 20:47:56< eptalon> Neurolysis: Ok. for the record, I am admin, crat and CheckUser, on SEWP.
15 Oct 2008 20:47:56< JulianC93> iMatthew: Admins if anything
15 Oct 2008 20:47:57< Aqwis> no thanks to more "special roles" for bureaucrats
15 Oct 2008 20:48:00< Alexfusco5> Mww113: they can be posted
15 Oct 2008 20:48:00< evilchristel> Yamakiri: you wouldnt then have complete logs and it could easily turn really weird -- context being removed etc
15 Oct 2008 20:48:05< Neurolysis> iMatthew - IRC is not Wikipedia.
15 Oct 2008 20:48:05< Yamakiri> We shouldn't have sanctions for IRC actions on wiki
15 Oct 2008 20:48:08< Thehelpfulone> JohnReaves: it can, but per wimt personal info might be given
15 Oct 2008 20:48:10< skenmy> but I honestly beleive that an searchable log of #wikipedia* would be beneficial
15 Oct 2008 20:48:14< Mww113> I agree with Yamakiri
15 Oct 2008 20:48:17< Alexfusco5> a trusted user can log it and post it every day
15 Oct 2008 20:48:22< Martinp23> MZMcBride: there's an ircd function which makes it easy to recognise logged in users (though without seeing IPs, someone uncloaked could be absolutely anyone, indeed, thus greatly diminshing the utility of any logs).
15 Oct 2008 20:48:23< Yamakiri> evilchristel: it'd be at the disgression of administrators
15 Oct 2008 20:48:33-!- rw_na is now known as rw_
15 Oct 2008 20:48:37< Mww113> with public logging, on-wiki action comes for doing somthing on irc
15 Oct 2008 20:48:39< Martinp23> Yamakiri: or ops?
15 Oct 2008 20:48:39< eptalon> Neurolysis: We did have a user who was basically blocked (for a year) for, lets call it immature behaviour.
15 Oct 2008 20:48:39< iMatthew> it's not, but if harassment is related to Wikipedia - then it involves admins and crats
15 Oct 2008 20:48:45< Aqwis> admins are an extremely diverse group
15 Oct 2008 20:48:47< Martinp23> Yamakiri: where is "the line"?
15 Oct 2008 20:48:49< Yamakiri> Martinp23: yes, or ops
15 Oct 2008 20:48:53< MZMcBride> Martinp23: So, what's the advantage to publicly logging again? :-)
15 Oct 2008 20:48:54< eptalon> Neurolysis: that user, was at the time, 12 years old, IIRC.
15 Oct 2008 20:48:59< Mww113> ops are even more so
15 Oct 2008 20:49:03< Martinp23> MZMcBride: Not sure, to be honest!
15 Oct 2008 20:49:04< JohnReaves> iMatthew:I think you just don't get it...
15 Oct 2008 20:49:06< Aqwis> if all admins had to the logs, *everyone* would have had access to them
15 Oct 2008 20:49:08< Yamakiri> Martinp23: if I were to say my phone number, I should be able to request it's removal
15 Oct 2008 20:49:16< Yamakiri> and replacement with a <censored> tag
15 Oct 2008 20:49:20< skenmy> MZMcBride, the transfer of on-irc discussions to on-wiki discussions
15 Oct 2008 20:49:28< eptalon> Neurolysis: Went through various stages of warnings and blocks, last block was a year (which he kept trying to evade).
15 Oct 2008 20:49:28< JohnReaves> Admins and 'crats and Wikipedia aren't related to the issue at all
15 Oct 2008 20:49:29< Yamakiri> Martinp23: It shouldn't be used if one harasses another user
15 Oct 2008 20:49:29< evilchristel> Yamakiri: would you be able to request that before it appeared on the web tho? :)
15 Oct 2008 20:49:30< Neurolysis> Yamakiri - How about a !censor tag?
15 Oct 2008 20:49:32< MZMcBride> skenmy: That's just silly.
15 Oct 2008 20:49:33< skenmy> the ability to check for context
15 Oct 2008 20:49:35-!- Dusti [*hostmask*] has left #wikipedia-meetings []
15 Oct 2008 20:49:37< wimt> My biggest concern, quite apart from the issues with people using logs for on wiki purposes, is a lot of personal information is divulged, particularly in -en. However much you stress the channel is not private, I don't believe that would suddenly stop happening if it were logged
15 Oct 2008 20:49:41< skenmy> why is that silly?
15 Oct 2008 20:49:49< Neurolysis> Yamakiri - Like !censor 2 for censoring two messages
15 Oct 2008 20:49:50< Martinp23> skenmy: IRC != Wiki. You appear to be under a misaprehnsion with this, given that there's massive drama on Wikipedia about the two *not* being the same at all.
15 Oct 2008 20:49:58< Martinp23> And that wiki debates shouldn't be decided on irc.
15 Oct 2008 20:50:00< JohnReaves> wimt:If people are idiots, that's thier own fault
15 Oct 2008 20:50:02< skenmy> I'm completely aware of that.
15 Oct 2008 20:50:05< MZMcBride> So far, I count concerns about history revisionism, leaks of private information, concerns about impersonation, and an increase in bureaucracy.
15 Oct 2008 20:50:08< evilchristel> skenmy: hrmm -- why use irc at all? why not just move it all to Talk?
15 Oct 2008 20:50:12< wimt> JohnReaves, but that's absolutely not always the case
15 Oct 2008 20:50:13< skenmy> But whether we like it or not, debates *do* happen on IRC
15 Oct 2008 20:50:13< tombom> Martinp23: but they often are so
15 Oct 2008 20:50:15< Platonides> JohnReaves, but even smart people have mistakes
15 Oct 2008 20:50:20< skenmy> does that make them immediately nul and void?
15 Oct 2008 20:50:20< seanw> I have a suggestion.
15 Oct 2008 20:50:23< wimt> I know someone whose facebook profile was pasted by *someone else*
15 Oct 2008 20:50:26< seanw> A sort of compromise between the two sides here.
15 Oct 2008 20:50:27< Thehelpfulone> JohnReaves: sometimes other people give information...
15 Oct 2008 20:50:29< eptalon> Neurolysis: At nearly the end of that year, meaning this August, i accidentally caught him on IRC, and had a nice Chat, which could clear up many things.
15 Oct 2008 20:50:30< wimt> The idiot isn't the one that loses out there
15 Oct 2008 20:50:31< Thehelpfulone> and picture and links
15 Oct 2008 20:50:34< Thehelpfulone> seanw: go ahead
15 Oct 2008 20:50:44< Thehelpfulone> do bold if you have too, there's a lot of conversation ;)
15 Oct 2008 20:50:46-!- iMatthew [*hostmask*] has left #wikipedia-meetings []
15 Oct 2008 20:50:49< [roux]> why not talk? realtime provides for easier conversation & allows misunderstandings to be corrected quickly and easily.
15 Oct 2008 20:50:50< Martinp23> tombom: that's something for the Wiki people to decide (if we imagine for a moment that the irc ops aren't on wiki at all)
15 Oct 2008 20:50:50-!- iMatthew [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 20:50:53< eptalon> Neurolysis: I therefore "used my influence" at SEWP, and got him unblocked.
15 Oct 2008 20:50:57< Neurolysis> eptalon - The majority of blatant vandals won't turn into that
15 Oct 2008 20:51:05< Mww113> Martinp23: But they are
15 Oct 2008 20:51:19< seanw> We could keep an official set of logs by wmfgcbot. If people wanted to verify something, they could make a request to do so. BUt all other logging (and true public logging) forbidden. That way those who want logging for the advantages get them, and those that are concerned are not harmed.
15 Oct 2008 20:51:22< tombom> hmm
15 Oct 2008 20:51:36< Martinp23> Mww113: so we should condone that?
15 Oct 2008 20:51:38< eptalon> Neurolysis: I doubt I could have spoken with him that freely if the conversation on the public channel had been logged.
15 Oct 2008 20:51:45< skenmy> Having public logging at least allows the discussion that took place to be shown to everyone, rather than those who are in the channel at the time.
15 Oct 2008 20:51:47< Neurolysis> eptalon - PMs?
15 Oct 2008 20:51:49< tombom> Martinp23: ... huh?
15 Oct 2008 20:51:50< Mww113> Martinp23: condone what?
15 Oct 2008 20:51:50< [roux]> seanw: not a bad idea. A rather good one actually.
15 Oct 2008 20:51:55< skenmy> It just seems so counter-constructive to me.
15 Oct 2008 20:51:56-!- MBisanz|away [*hostmask*] has left #wikipedia-meetings []
15 Oct 2008 20:51:56< JulianC93> seanw: I like that idea
15 Oct 2008 20:52:07< Mww113> seanw: I disagree
15 Oct 2008 20:52:10< skenmy> seanw, definately a workable idea
15 Oct 2008 20:52:11< eptalon> Neurolysis: You need a certain level of trust to get to PM stage.
15 Oct 2008 20:52:11< Yamakiri> seanw: wouldn't that be a bit hard to do?
15 Oct 2008 20:52:11< Martinp23> Mww113: eh, sorry, I was a step behind.
15 Oct 2008 20:52:12< Thehelpfulone> seanw: who would have access to the bot
15 Oct 2008 20:52:16< [garden]> seanw: I agree to that.
15 Oct 2008 20:52:16< Thehelpfulone> and the logs?
15 Oct 2008 20:52:19< tombom> seanw: that's at least something. i'm not hugely attached to public logging
15 Oct 2008 20:52:21< [roux]> seanw: maybe with an expiry date of, say, 1month?
15 Oct 2008 20:52:22< iMatthew> seanw - great idea
15 Oct 2008 20:52:24 * Mww113 disagrees completly
15 Oct 2008 20:52:29< skenmy> no expiry, though
15 Oct 2008 20:52:35< JulianC93> Mww113: what with?
15 Oct 2008 20:52:36< Yamakiri> I agree with [roux]'s expiry date
15 Oct 2008 20:52:36< wimt> The problem with that idea is you are trusting a very small number of people to verify the logs and pick up on the context in which they were said
15 Oct 2008 20:52:41< [garden]> Thehelpfulone: a freenode staffer?
15 Oct 2008 20:52:43< Aqwis> i agree with wimt.
15 Oct 2008 20:52:49< wimt> I don't really see how that would be better than asking people about their own logs
15 Oct 2008 20:52:53< Mww113> That would cause on wiki sanctions for actions on irc
15 Oct 2008 20:52:55< Aqwis> we don't need more cliques who can do wtf they want
15 Oct 2008 20:52:55< Thehelpfulone> [garden]: that would be no use to wikimedia ops :S
15 Oct 2008 20:52:59< skenmy> Perhaps it is a task that could fall to the GCs?
15 Oct 2008 20:52:59< Mww113> not acceptable.
15 Oct 2008 20:53:00< [garden]> oh.
15 Oct 2008 20:53:02< Aqwis> like looking in the logs while noone else can
15 Oct 2008 20:53:05< Yamakiri> wimt: Maybe if all ops had access to that channel's logs?
15 Oct 2008 20:53:12< eptalon> Neurolysis: I am not saying its a magic cure for long term abusers, I just want to have the option to keep them at ease, ie. not have public logging, that is possible available for all users.
15 Oct 2008 20:53:15< Martinp23> skenmy: If the admins on ANI are thick enough now to accept an irc decision, enwiki's got bigger problems. As far as I know, whenever IRC is mentioned on ANI as a place where a discussion has been made, the response invariably is "OMG IRC is not wiki!1!".
15 Oct 2008 20:53:18< Thehelpfulone> unless you someone like martin, wimt, or sean who are on all the time - which is no point anyways then :S
15 Oct 2008 20:53:19< Mww113> Yamakiri: Ops are very diverse people
15 Oct 2008 20:53:29< Yamakiri> Mww113: they have still been trusted
15 Oct 2008 20:53:31< Neurolysis> eptalon - how about an option for an op to turn off logging
15 Oct 2008 20:53:35< wimt> Yamakiri, potentially, though giving that much access out would start to give very little control over their privacy
15 Oct 2008 20:53:41< skenmy> Martinp23, and that's an attitude that I seek to change
15 Oct 2008 20:53:47< [roux]> okay, have it logged & encrypted by the bot, emailed to someone at the foundation, can be accessed via OTRS or whatnot?
15 Oct 2008 20:53:48< Martinp23> skenmy: good luck.
15 Oct 2008 20:53:52< Thehelpfulone> Yamakiri: especially if ops shared the info with others
15 Oct 2008 20:53:55< skenmy> I knew you would say that.
15 Oct 2008 20:54:04< eptalon> Neurolysis: Alternative, log publicly, but make it only available to checkusers?
15 Oct 2008 20:54:06< Yamakiri> Thehelpfulone: why would they have to share it?
15 Oct 2008 20:54:07< tombom> logged & encyrpted? a bit much?
15 Oct 2008 20:54:11< Thehelpfulone> [roux]: again, what use is OTRS to admins
15 Oct 2008 20:54:14< tombom> well good luck with the rest of this discussion
15 Oct 2008 20:54:15< [roux]> eptalon: now there's a good idea!
15 Oct 2008 20:54:15-!- tombom [*hostmask*] has quit ["Peace and Protection 4.22.2"]
15 Oct 2008 20:54:19< Thehelpfulone> Yamakiri: they wouldn't but some ops might still
15 Oct 2008 20:54:21-!- Synergy [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 20:54:22< Thehelpfulone> [roux]: *ops
15 Oct 2008 20:54:24< wimt> tombom, well, someone or some people still have to be able to decrypt it ;-)
15 Oct 2008 20:54:34< evilchristel> while it would make your logs completely messed up; would you allow people the option to opt out from having their contributions unlogged and nick censored in logs?
15 Oct 2008 20:54:40< [roux]> Checkusers are already trusted by the community with sensitive data
15 Oct 2008 20:54:45 * Synergy shows up all late, and drunk
15 Oct 2008 20:54:50< Martinp23> Well, seanw's idea of having wmfgcbot log is little more than politics, as plenty of "trusted" users log already and can and do confirm or deny stuff if it's a reasonable request, I expect.
15 Oct 2008 20:54:51< eptalon> [roux]: Checkusers are identified, trusted by their community, and bound by privacy policy.
15 Oct 2008 20:54:53< skenmy> I think having nicknames censored is a good idea
15 Oct 2008 20:55:02< [roux]> eptalon: precisely
15 Oct 2008 20:55:06< skenmy> however removing lines is again counter-productive - we lose context.
15 Oct 2008 20:55:06< Neurolysis> skenmy - Great idea, how about a tripcode?
15 Oct 2008 20:55:14< Martinp23> Censored nicknames? Change everyone to AAAAA1 AAAAA2, etc?
15 Oct 2008 20:55:15< eptalon> [roux]: at least ideally.
15 Oct 2008 20:55:18< Martinp23> Or hostmasks?
15 Oct 2008 20:55:20< wimt> Nick censoring really doesn't work - it's generally very easy to work out who someone is
15 Oct 2008 20:55:26< skenmy> Martinp23, no, on request
15 Oct 2008 20:55:27< Thehelpfulone> I think the point is that *ops* in *wikimedia* channels that *use* IRC need to be able to access the logs - not some random checkusers or OTRS people who don't IRC
15 Oct 2008 20:55:29< evilchristel> Martinp23: well, id assume youd strip hostmasks by default, nicknames
15 Oct 2008 20:55:33< [roux]> Er, if nicks are censored, what's the point?
15 Oct 2008 20:55:35< [garden]> agree with wimt, again
15 Oct 2008 20:55:45< [garden]> and [roux]
15 Oct 2008 20:55:46< Neurolysis> [roux] - Tripcodes solve that problem
15 Oct 2008 20:55:50-!- chuck [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 20:55:50< Aqwis> wimt is right.
15 Oct 2008 20:55:51< [roux]> Tripcode?
15 Oct 2008 20:55:51< skenmy> so it'd become WikiUserXYZ, WikiUser ABC, etc
15 Oct 2008 20:56:05< Martinp23> agree with Thehelpfulone, ultimately.
15 Oct 2008 20:56:13< seanw> Sorry chaps I have epic wireless fail this evening.
15 Oct 2008 20:56:16< seanw> Let me catch up a bit.
15 Oct 2008 20:56:18< skenmy> agreed with Thehelpfulone there
15 Oct 2008 20:56:25< wimt> s/wireless//
15 Oct 2008 20:56:28< eptalon> [roux]: plus only keep logs for a short time, say a week...
15 Oct 2008 20:56:33< Yamakiri> Adding another responsibility to checkusers?
15 Oct 2008 20:56:34< Platonides> I have been some logs like that
15 Oct 2008 20:56:34< Platonides> and context was lost when they referred to other by the real (unchanged) nick
15 Oct 2008 20:56:35< Yamakiri> that's horrible
15 Oct 2008 20:56:38< Neurolysis> [roux] - A tripcode, yes.
15 Oct 2008 20:56:40< skenmy> I don't agree with any form of expiry
15 Oct 2008 20:56:42< Martinp23> I keep picturing scenarios of, say, an OTRS ticket complaining, and then some OTRS person or someone grabbing one of the channel ops and saying "get rid of this person".
15 Oct 2008 20:56:43< Neurolysis> [roux] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripcode
15 Oct 2008 20:56:45< Platonides> or they could refer to them with some abbreviation
15 Oct 2008 20:56:48< Mww113> skenmy: Impossible
15 Oct 2008 20:56:55< Mww113> the filesize would be massive
15 Oct 2008 20:57:05< skenmy> or make it something rather long
15 Oct 2008 20:57:07< seanw> Martinp23, good point about my method, but it would be a sort of stopping point of verifiability; with those logs it was either said or not.
15 Oct 2008 20:57:08< JulianC93> Keep it in different fules
15 Oct 2008 20:57:09< Alexfusco5> Mww113: then log it by day
15 Oct 2008 20:57:09< skenmy> say, 6 months to a year
15 Oct 2008 20:57:11< Martinp23> (in fact this has happened for another channel in the past. I imagine such occurences becoming much more common).
15 Oct 2008 20:57:11< JulianC93> *files
15 Oct 2008 20:57:12< wimt> The worst case scenario would surely be people acting upon logs for a time they weren't in the channel, without knowing the full context
15 Oct 2008 20:57:16< Synergy> yes yes, fules
15 Oct 2008 20:57:18< Mww113> if you want to have over 1tb of data, then be my guest.
15 Oct 2008 20:57:21< eptalon> Checkusers are able to determine what info is considered private, and release the non-private parts on req?
15 Oct 2008 20:57:23< wimt> And context is not just the 20 minutes surrounding the discussion
15 Oct 2008 20:57:23< skenmy> well log file rotation is a given...
15 Oct 2008 20:57:25< Aqwis> 1tb?
15 Oct 2008 20:57:27< Aqwis> hardly
15 Oct 2008 20:57:27< Martinp23> seanw: the same's true of /home/martinp23/FreeNode/\#wikipedia/*
15 Oct 2008 20:57:27< skenmy> Mww113, hahahaha
15 Oct 2008 20:57:28< Martinp23> :p
15 Oct 2008 20:57:30< wimt> It's knowing a person's behaviour longer term
15 Oct 2008 20:57:32-!- Suiseiseki [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 20:57:33< Mww113> But, I doubt anyone will want to have thatmuch :P
15 Oct 2008 20:57:44< seanw> Martinp23, you have a weird naming scheme :P
15 Oct 2008 20:58:00< evilchristel> [roux]: in practicality what is proposed is to make the logs of the channel(s) available to every person, across the globe, with an internet connection of any kind -- many of us are very easily identifiable by nick alone, and as such far from comfortable with public logging for that reason alone (thus the question)
15 Oct 2008 20:58:09< JohnReaves> eptalon:What do Checkusers have to do with anything?
15 Oct 2008 20:58:21< Aqwis> i'm in the channel for about 60% of the day and my private log from the last year is about 30 MB
15 Oct 2008 20:58:37< skenmy> it's only plaintext
15 Oct 2008 20:58:51< Aqwis> *past year
15 Oct 2008 20:58:53< [roux]> evilchristel: I'm far from comfortable with it too. Thus.. log, give only Checkusers access to the bot and logs, ability to pull info on-wiki on request.
15 Oct 2008 20:58:56< Thehelpfulone> eptalon: as i said, checkusers that don't even use irc have no need for access to these logs, and it's useless to them, as it's the ops who need it
15 Oct 2008 20:58:57< Martinp23> Logs aren't big at all - anything about space issues needn't be a concern at all.
15 Oct 2008 20:58:59< eptalon> JohnReaves: Checkusers are identified to the foundation, trusted by the respective community and bound by privacy policy. We are talking about possibly private info in those logs.
15 Oct 2008 20:59:17< [roux]> As for ops on IRC needing to see logs.. anyone who thinks that half the people in any channel aren't logging is deluding themselves.
15 Oct 2008 20:59:20< JohnReaves> eptalon:IRC has nothing to do with the wiki
15 Oct 2008 20:59:22< JohnReaves> or checkusers
15 Oct 2008 20:59:32< wimt> eptalon, trusted by the foundation to be capable Checkusers - not trusted to be able to gain context from an IRC discussion, surely
15 Oct 2008 20:59:35 * Mww113 was exaggerating ;)
15 Oct 2008 20:59:40< skenmy> I don't think checkusers having access is the best way of filtering access (speaking *as* a checkuser)
15 Oct 2008 20:59:41< JulianC93> [roux]: I don't log :/
15 Oct 2008 20:59:41< JohnReaves> [roux]:The issue is *public* logging
15 Oct 2008 20:59:41< Martinp23> [roux]: I log, I know seanw does, and most ops do.
15 Oct 2008 20:59:47< eptalon> Thehelpfulone: The regular wiki op can be anyone, and is not bound by anything like a privacy policy.
15 Oct 2008 20:59:57< [roux]> JohnReaves: I'm aware of what the issue is.
15 Oct 2008 20:59:58< evilchristel> if this is just about making it available to a set number of people (ops -- who mostly will have logs already, and checkusers) then a logbot which logged somewhere accessable by those shouldnt be a problem at all?
15 Oct 2008 21:00:08< JohnReaves> plus, hardly any checkuser bother with public channels in the first place
15 Oct 2008 21:00:08-!- Golbez [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 21:00:12< Mww113> the issue is *public* logging
15 Oct 2008 21:00:20< [roux]> Yes, we're aware of that Mww113
15 Oct 2008 21:00:38< Mww113> not *semi-private-but-accessible-by-specific-users* logging
15 Oct 2008 21:00:40< eptalon> wimt: Its about being able to assess what is private info and what isn't.
15 Oct 2008 21:00:44< Thehelpfulone> eptalon: true, but again checkusers don't have any part to play with IRC unless they are an op (which they usually aren't - more about checkusering)
15 Oct 2008 21:00:46< Yamakiri> eptalon: checkusers shouldn't have to be affiliated with IRC logging
15 Oct 2008 21:00:47< Neurolysis> Mww113 - I've been thinking that
15 Oct 2008 21:00:52< Mww113> ;)
15 Oct 2008 21:00:53< eptalon> wimt: And being bound by privacy policy.
15 Oct 2008 21:00:55< Yamakiri> they have a busy schedule
15 Oct 2008 21:01:05< Yamakiri> and this is only partially affiliatad
15 Oct 2008 21:01:06< JohnReaves> eptalon:Not on IRC
15 Oct 2008 21:01:07 * [roux] shrugs, leaves. Enjoy. This is way too much scroll for me.
15 Oct 2008 21:01:11-!- [roux] [*hostmask*] has left #wikipedia-meetings []
15 Oct 2008 21:01:18< wimt> eptalon, that's certainly one aspect, and I agree that ops are not bound by that, so CUers are safer privacy-wise. But that's only part of the issue
15 Oct 2008 21:01:39< eptalon> Thehelpfulone: Then create the function of "op bound by privacy policy, able to see irc logs."
15 Oct 2008 21:01:40-!- gods_chillin [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 21:01:41< Martinp23> IRC != Wiki. Checkusers would be a disastorious set of people to have involved (as would anyone who doesn't "understand" IRC, which is a group that encompasses most of wikipedia!).
15 Oct 2008 21:01:43< Mww113> alright, we need to find some way of recording our thoughts
15 Oct 2008 21:01:45< werdan7> I don't think we should use any on-wiki role for anything on irc
15 Oct 2008 21:01:49-!- gods_chillin is now known as east718
15 Oct 2008 21:02:02< wimt> Regardless of the fact they might be trusted with private details, there is no reason to suggest they would be able to interpret IRC logs with full context
15 Oct 2008 21:02:08< JohnReaves> of couse not
15 Oct 2008 21:02:17< JohnReaves> this discussion is ridiculous
15 Oct 2008 21:02:18< Mww113> its the whole "you had to be there" thing
15 Oct 2008 21:02:38< eptalon> Thehelpfulone: I dont insist on checkusers for them being checkusers, but for them being legally bound by the privacy policy/CU rules.
15 Oct 2008 21:02:42< Martinp23> I mean, if I'm in #wikipedia and agree (naughtily) that some certain course of action should be taken on Wikipedia with another user, and we both agree with eachother to paste the logs, that's *allowed* under the current rule.
15 Oct 2008 21:02:42< Neurolysis> This discussion is getting a bit off topic, public logging does not equal logging for checkusers
15 Oct 2008 21:02:53< Mww113> checkusers having the log access is ridiculous
15 Oct 2008 21:03:04< JohnReaves> eptalon:The privacy policy has nothing to do with IRC
15 Oct 2008 21:03:08< werdan7> also, the WMF privacy policy doesn't apply ro irc
15 Oct 2008 21:03:11< Martinp23> Public logging would spread the idle gossip, the insults, the crap.
15 Oct 2008 21:03:17< wimt> It's also fairly pointless - if checkusers wanted a log of the channel, they could make one themselves
15 Oct 2008 21:03:18-!- JulianC93 [*hostmask*] has quit ["Reconnecting…"]
15 Oct 2008 21:03:23< Neurolysis> What is it with you people and CUers?
15 Oct 2008 21:03:29< skenmy> Martinp23, so keep that to -offtopic, an unlogged channel
15 Oct 2008 21:03:31< eptalon> JohnReaves: IRC logs potentially contain private info, like IP addresses.
15 Oct 2008 21:03:37< east718> sorry for the interruption, but is this logging discussion being logged... /me arrived late to the party... :p
15 Oct 2008 21:03:37< Aqwis> oh my god
15 Oct 2008 21:03:40< Aqwis> ip addresses!
15 Oct 2008 21:03:40< Martinp23> skenmy: won't work.
15 Oct 2008 21:03:43-!- JulianC93_ [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 21:03:45< Martinp23> (hasn't in the past)
15 Oct 2008 21:03:45-!- JulianC93_ is now known as JulianC93
15 Oct 2008 21:03:55< Aqwis> you mean like.. 85.200.143.214
15 Oct 2008 21:03:56< werdan7> anything can contain potentially private info
15 Oct 2008 21:03:57< JohnReaves> eptalon:That doesn't matter at all
15 Oct 2008 21:04:01< Synergy> east718: yeah
15 Oct 2008 21:04:02< JohnReaves> IRC isn't Wikipedia
15 Oct 2008 21:04:02< wimt> We've tried -social in so many variants in the past, and it hasn't worked
15 Oct 2008 21:04:14< wimt> Mostly because the main channels are inherently social themselves
15 Oct 2008 21:04:16< Synergy> or so it said the other day
15 Oct 2008 21:04:18< Mww113> I agree with JohnReaves
15 Oct 2008 21:04:18< Rinn> Any type of public forum can contain private info.
15 Oct 2008 21:04:36< wimt> Rinn, and I'd argue more so when conversation is real time
15 Oct 2008 21:04:51 * Mww113 points out that the wiki is just as likely (if not more) to contain private data.
15 Oct 2008 21:04:52< wimt> Comments are less considered
15 Oct 2008 21:04:59-!- Matthewedwards [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 21:05:11< Neurolysis> eptalon - So does MediaWiki.
15 Oct 2008 21:05:12< skenmy> People don't seem to have a problem that anything they post on-wiki is archived fully - why is it such a big change for that to be happening on IRC as well?
15 Oct 2008 21:05:22< Thehelpfulone> for example, in #-en people are always giving out there locations or bits of information about them that they don't think are going to be publically logged and published to the internet
15 Oct 2008 21:05:24< eptalon> Rinn: the porblem is not from IP address scrolling by, but log being stored, possibly a long time.
15 Oct 2008 21:05:26< wimt> Mww113, I disagree - many people are very careful about the personal details they reveal on wiki, whereas a quick grep of my IRC logs would bring up huge numbers of details about them
15 Oct 2008 21:05:38< Thehelpfulone> skenmy: because IRC's not official..
15 Oct 2008 21:05:45< Neurolysis> eptalon - Logs are stored frequently. I have one myself.
15 Oct 2008 21:05:50< eptalon> Rinn: And being available to users not bound by any policy.
15 Oct 2008 21:05:51< Mww113> wimt: If you ask an oversighter, I would bet you that they would disagree
15 Oct 2008 21:05:51< werdan7> skenmy: because IRC has much more social conversations, occuring much more rapidly
15 Oct 2008 21:05:54< skenmy> Thehelpfulone, that's a plaina nd simple awful reason
15 Oct 2008 21:05:55 * Thehelpfulone agrees with wimt about the public information
15 Oct 2008 21:05:57< Synergy> skenmy: some people speak /more/ freely on irc, than on wiki
15 Oct 2008 21:06:04< Neurolysis> eptalon - And I don't plan to delete it, I don't understand the problem with the length of storage
15 Oct 2008 21:06:09< Martinp23> skenmy: it's a marvellous reason.
15 Oct 2008 21:06:10< eptalon> Neurolysis: thats your private one.
15 Oct 2008 21:06:10 * JulianC93 agrees with Synergy
15 Oct 2008 21:06:14< Rinn> eptalon: Well, so? For all you know, I could be logging anything you say already.
15 Oct 2008 21:06:20< wimt> Mww113, well potentially yes - but if public logging were allowed wholesale, we would have no way of oversighting logs
15 Oct 2008 21:06:30< Martinp23> skenmy: I've said plenty of things in #wikipedia(-en) that I wouldn't say on Wikipedia, and I *know* that's what others do.
15 Oct 2008 21:06:31< Mww113> wimt: I agree
15 Oct 2008 21:06:34< Aqwis> you can't oversight my private logs.
15 Oct 2008 21:06:35< JohnReaves> That's why we have an offical log
15 Oct 2008 21:06:36< Neurolysis> eptalon - Yes, but you said your problem was with the length of storage
15 Oct 2008 21:06:40< Mww113> I am against logging in any way shape or form
15 Oct 2008 21:06:46< Thehelpfulone> skenmy: people talk more socially on IRC than they do on wiki, on wiki they're more careful and once it's there - it's there - no changing it - however on IRC, social chatter wouldn't matter as much
15 Oct 2008 21:06:58< skenmy> But it *should*
15 Oct 2008 21:06:59< Martinp23> If things were publically logged, people would be always watching their stepm, ready for the Ctrl-F "Username" when they go in for RfA.
15 Oct 2008 21:07:01 * Mww113 agrees with Thehelpfulone
15 Oct 2008 21:07:02< Martinp23> For example"
15 Oct 2008 21:07:02< JulianC93> Thehelpfulone: exactly
15 Oct 2008 21:07:07< Rinn> skenmy: No it shouldn't.
15 Oct 2008 21:07:08< Aqwis> i agree with skenmy again
15 Oct 2008 21:07:10< skenmy> at least, in our pseudo-official channels
15 Oct 2008 21:07:11< seanw> I'm off, hope I was useful in some way (am tired). Bye.
15 Oct 2008 21:07:12< Mww113> skenmy: No, it shouldn't
15 Oct 2008 21:07:12< Martinp23> skenmy: it shouldn't.
15 Oct 2008 21:07:15< Synergy> skenmy: and then again, logging conversation will then be used against people on wiki, its almost as if it would be the same when you'd use yahoo or aim! for gods sake
15 Oct 2008 21:07:16< JohnReaves> Maybe public logging would actually keep the channel on topic
15 Oct 2008 21:07:22-!- PseudoOne [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 21:07:22< Martinp23> (not to the extent you seem to be suggesting).
15 Oct 2008 21:07:24< Rinn> JohnReaves: That's terrible!
15 Oct 2008 21:07:28< skenmy> JohnReaves, hear hear!
15 Oct 2008 21:07:28< JohnReaves> people can do their socializing in a non-logged channel
15 Oct 2008 21:07:41< Mww113> I disagree
15 Oct 2008 21:07:46< Synergy> there shouldn't be a topic
15 Oct 2008 21:07:47< Thehelpfulone> Martinp23: yes, and in that people would just use things against them, e.g . per [this irc log] i have found that they are ...
15 Oct 2008 21:07:49< wimt> I am going to bet that, if we made a public log and censored parts of it for privacy, Brandt and the like would make a log to highlight the bits we had removed from our log. Thus highlighting personal details and making the situation far worse
15 Oct 2008 21:07:57< wimt> It may not happen, but I really think it would
15 Oct 2008 21:07:58< Mww113> its nice to take off the wiki suit when on irc and relax a bit
15 Oct 2008 21:08:00< Neurolysis> JohnReaves - #wikipedia serves as the front desk and social frontend if you like, why stop that?
15 Oct 2008 21:08:05-!- Suiseiseki1 [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 21:08:09< Synergy> its a meeting place for all users to talk, what we talk about shouldn't be an issue really
15 Oct 2008 21:08:22< Aqwis> again, wimt, what makes you think Brandt and co don't already have logs?
15 Oct 2008 21:08:26< Synergy> i mean, wtf topic can we talk about 24/7?
15 Oct 2008 21:08:37< wimt> Aqwis, oh, I absolutely think they already do
15 Oct 2008 21:08:42< Mww113> Synergy: I agree for the most part
15 Oct 2008 21:08:42< Martinp23> #wikipedia and -en are largely social. This is their nature. Unlike #freenode or #ubuntu, we don't get users asking how to drop a nick, or how to get their graphics working.
15 Oct 2008 21:08:43< JohnReaves> Well, it's upposed to be on-topic...just because no one is on topic doesn't mean it isn't
15 Oct 2008 21:08:45< skenmy> For social stuff they should be using a social channel. If #wikipedia were logged, I bet people would tend toward using a social channel more - purely because it is unlogged
15 Oct 2008 21:08:45< Aqwis> then what is the issue?
15 Oct 2008 21:09:02< Martinp23> We may get image queries or editing assistance requests or admin pings, but it's mostly social
15 Oct 2008 21:09:06< wimt> Aqwis, but if they were to highlight the bits we removed from our logs publicly, that would draw focus to the bits we wanted removed
15 Oct 2008 21:09:08< Rinn> skenmy: I wouldn't.
15 Oct 2008 21:09:12-!- Suiseiseki [*hostmask*] has quit [Nick collision from services.]
15 Oct 2008 21:09:14< Aqwis> ah, in that way
15 Oct 2008 21:09:14< Martinp23> skenmy: It'd fracture any community.
15 Oct 2008 21:09:15< wimt> Might not happen, but it wouldn't be out of character if it did
15 Oct 2008 21:09:16< Synergy> JohnReaves: understandable, but it shouldn't be policed to stay on topic really
15 Oct 2008 21:09:16< JohnReaves> on-topic is a separate issue though
15 Oct 2008 21:09:17-!- Suiseiseki1 is now known as Suiseiseki
15 Oct 2008 21:09:19< Aqwis> sorry, misread your sentence
15 Oct 2008 21:09:24< wimt> np
15 Oct 2008 21:09:29< JulianC93> #wikipedia is more social than -en
15 Oct 2008 21:09:33< JohnReaves> Synergy:It wouldn't be
15 Oct 2008 21:09:40< Mww113> we dont need on-wiki actions for IRC stuff
15 Oct 2008 21:09:40< Thehelpfulone> JulianC93: agreed
15 Oct 2008 21:09:41< Synergy> if?
15 Oct 2008 21:09:46< skenmy> so perhaps don't log #wikipedia, but log -* ?
15 Oct 2008 21:09:48< Mww113> it defeats the purpose of irc
15 Oct 2008 21:09:52< Synergy> i'm looking for an if or a but ;p
15 Oct 2008 21:09:53< JohnReaves> I'm merely suggesting that public logging would make people more wary of using it socially
15 Oct 2008 21:09:59< [garden]> Well, they wouldn't be social if they were logged, surely
15 Oct 2008 21:10:07< [garden]> ah,
15 Oct 2008 21:10:11< [garden]> been said.
15 Oct 2008 21:10:12< Neurolysis> JohnReaves - The IRC WP page says it serves as a social frontend
15 Oct 2008 21:10:13< Rinn> I would!
15 Oct 2008 21:10:16< Mww113> JohnReaves: Then whoat *should* we talk about in #wikipedia?
15 Oct 2008 21:10:16< eptalon> Martinp23: by that reasoning it does not need logging. What use is it to see that a week ago at 5 to twelve, someone asked you to help on an article?
15 Oct 2008 21:10:26< Suiseiseki> thats your fault for saying private stuff
15 Oct 2008 21:10:27< Synergy> right, but that aspect is lax, it would force people into darker corners, shut them out of main rooms
15 Oct 2008 21:10:34< JohnReaves> Mww113:Not the point, that is a different subject all together
15 Oct 2008 21:10:36< Martinp23> eptalon: Indeed, it doesn't need logging imo.
15 Oct 2008 21:11:02< Mww113> I would personally part it all together and take all of my official business into an unlogged channel anyway
15 Oct 2008 21:11:08< Mww113> that is if #wikipedia were logged
15 Oct 2008 21:11:14< Thehelpfulone> hmm, i'm still thinking about these logs, and say for example, someone gets a bit angry and starts flooding the channel (for their first time) - someone will see the log, the ban the warningsn and if it comes to RFA it will be: "oh and s/he's got anger problems therefore i'll oppose per xyz logs"
15 Oct 2008 21:11:26< eptalon> Martinp23: If you personally think trhis stuff is important to you, you can log it. But WMF as a whole should not log.
15 Oct 2008 21:11:27< Synergy> so who here is actually *for* logging conversations? room
15 Oct 2008 21:11:34< Martinp23> eptalon: I agree.
15 Oct 2008 21:11:36< skenmy> I am
15 Oct 2008 21:11:38< Suiseiseki> thehelpfulone:IRC is not wikipedia
15 Oct 2008 21:11:43< Mww113> I agree with Thehelpfulone
15 Oct 2008 21:11:50< Suiseiseki> you can't oppose for such reason
15 Oct 2008 21:11:54< Thehelpfulone> Suiseiseki: true, but people will still try to relate to it
15 Oct 2008 21:11:59< Synergy> skenmy: whats the benefit?
15 Oct 2008 21:12:03< Neurolysis> JohnReaves - It's not avoiding the question, why do you think that #wikipedia should be 100% wikipedia related when #wikipedia-en and such exist?
15 Oct 2008 21:12:03< Martinp23> Suiseiseki: people would if they could
15 Oct 2008 21:12:07< Aqwis> i am for
15 Oct 2008 21:12:08< eptalon> Martinp23: Also solves the problem with possibly long term storage of possibly private info.
15 Oct 2008 21:12:08< Mww113> Suiseiseki: People don't have to tell you why they oppose
15 Oct 2008 21:12:13-!- WPossum is now known as Goosebumps
15 Oct 2008 21:12:14< skenmy> I've outlined the benefits previously in the channel
15 Oct 2008 21:12:17< Mww113> I could say somthing like
15 Oct 2008 21:12:19< Synergy> XD
15 Oct 2008 21:12:23< Synergy> i knew you'd say that
15 Oct 2008 21:12:26< Synergy> i hate showing up late
15 Oct 2008 21:12:28< Mww113> "Does not communicate well"
15 Oct 2008 21:12:29< Thehelpfulone> on top of that we have #wikipedia-en-help for more specific help to the english wikipeida...
15 Oct 2008 21:12:29< skenmy> Read the lo...oh wait :)
15 Oct 2008 21:12:29< Martinp23> Not_the_NSA (R) got loads of opposes based on his irc actions at the time.
15 Oct 2008 21:12:31< Suiseiseki> either way its still going to happen
15 Oct 2008 21:12:32< Thehelpfulone> wikipedia*
15 Oct 2008 21:12:32< Neurolysis> Suiseiseki - People can oppose for whatever reason
15 Oct 2008 21:12:32< JohnReaves> Neurolysis:I'm not getting into that right now, separate issue
15 Oct 2008 21:12:33< Mww113> as an oppose reason
15 Oct 2008 21:12:39< skenmy> (actually this is being logged :P)
15 Oct 2008 21:12:40< Suiseiseki> logging or not
15 Oct 2008 21:12:45< Synergy> i know
15 Oct 2008 21:12:52< Suiseiseki> Neurolysis:I know, stop reapeating
15 Oct 2008 21:13:04< Martinp23> eptalon: I'm against logging (save the rainforests!)
15 Oct 2008 21:13:06< eptalon> Martinp23: You need a "who can become admin" policy..
15 Oct 2008 21:13:11< Neurolysis> Suiseiseki - I said it once =/
15 Oct 2008 21:13:13< skenmy> lmao Martinp23
15 Oct 2008 21:13:23< Synergy> Martinp23: screw the rainforests! we can grow new ones!
15 Oct 2008 21:13:23< Suiseiseki> Neurolysis:other have already said it
15 Oct 2008 21:13:25< Synergy> ;)
15 Oct 2008 21:13:29< Martinp23> Anyway. We've done that to death.
15 Oct 2008 21:13:32< Neurolysis> Suiseiseki - Oh, right. Sorry.
15 Oct 2008 21:13:36< Suiseiseki> :P
15 Oct 2008 21:13:40-!- mode/#wikipedia-meetings [+o Martinp23] by ChanServ
15 Oct 2008 21:13:42-!- mode/#wikipedia-meetings [+m] by Martinp23
15 Oct 2008 21:13:48-!- mode/#wikipedia-meetings [+z] by Martinp23
15 Oct 2008 21:13:48< eptalon> And "I am opposing based on an IRC conversation with the candidate" is not a valid oppose.
15 Oct 2008 21:13:53< Goosebumps> eh?
15 Oct 2008 21:13:54-!- Ironholds [*hostmask*] has left #wikipedia-meetings []
15 Oct 2008 21:13:59< Mww113> the hell?
15 Oct 2008 21:14:01<@Martinp23> I've just set the channel +m for a moment.
15 Oct 2008 21:14:04<@Martinp23> Hold on.
15 Oct 2008 21:14:07< Rinn> We realize that.
15 Oct 2008 21:14:10< Alexfusco5> Martinp23: why :~(
15 Oct 2008 21:14:13< Alexfusco5> ;)
15 Oct 2008 21:14:19< Mww113> dont log us
15 Oct 2008 21:14:23< Mww113> when we are in +m
15 Oct 2008 21:14:31<@Martinp23> (you're still logged yes)
15 Oct 2008 21:14:36< agk-away> Speak.
15 Oct 2008 21:14:46< Rinn> But what if someone posts my phone number?!
15 Oct 2008 21:14:46 * Alexfusco5 notes thats what +z meant
15 Oct 2008 21:14:49< Mww113> why are you doing this?
15 Oct 2008 21:14:59 * Mww113 has to go
15 Oct 2008 21:15:04< Mww113> I will check in later
15 Oct 2008 21:15:04< PseudoOne> :)
15 Oct 2008 21:15:25-!- GDonato [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 21:15:41<@Martinp23> Now, while we're going on with this discussion, it's getting rather unstructured. What would be constructive now, without any actual debate just now, would be for everyone to post a oneliner on why they're for/against (or multiple small points). PLEASE DO NOT ENGAGE JUST YET ON THESE POINTS. (nor "agree with blah", I want to get a pciture of peoples' opinions).
15 Oct 2008 21:15:42<@Martinp23> ta
15 Oct 2008 21:15:47-!- mode/#wikipedia-meetings [-m] by Martinp23
15 Oct 2008 21:16:08< Suiseiseki> wait, even if its logged how do you know which user I am
15 Oct 2008 21:16:14[Users #wikipedia-meetings]
15 Oct 2008 21:16:14[@ChanServ ] [ Chenzw2 ] [ GDonato ] [ Neskaya ] [ Rjd|away ] [ werdan7 ]
15 Oct 2008 21:16:14[@Martinp23 ] [ chuck ] [ Golbez ] [ Neurolysis ] [ rw_ ] [ wimt ]
15 Oct 2008 21:16:14[ [garden] ] [ cimon ] [ Goosebumps ] [ PeterSymonds] [ seanw ] [ worby ]
15 Oct 2008 21:16:14[ agk-away ] [ CWii ] [ iMatthew ] [ Platonides ] [ skenmy ] [ Yamakiri]
15 Oct 2008 21:16:14[ Alexfusco5 ] [ east718 ] [ JohnReaves ] [ PseudoOne ] [ Submarine ]
15 Oct 2008 21:16:14[ Aqwis ] [ eptalon ] [ JulianC93 ] [ publunch ] [ Suiseiseki ]
15 Oct 2008 21:16:14[ Brownout ] [ evilchristel ] [ Matthewedwards] [ Qst ] [ Synergy ]
15 Oct 2008 21:16:14[ CharlotteWebb] [ Farosdaughter] [ Mww113 ] [ Reedy ] [ Thehelpfulone]
15 Oct 2008 21:16:14[ chb ] [ FrancoGG ] [ MZMcBride ] [ Rinn ] [ Tjalling ]
15 Oct 2008 21:16:14-!- Irssi: #wikipedia-meetings: Total of 49 nicks [2 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 47 normal]
15 Oct 2008 21:16:21< Synergy> ...
15 Oct 2008 21:16:25< Neurolysis> I support public logging on the basis that it already is occuring off wiki, and I don't see it being any more of a privacy issue being logged on Wiki.,
15 Oct 2008 21:16:28< Suiseiseki> even if I chose not to activate my cloak
15 Oct 2008 21:16:40< Suiseiseki> how can you oppose in a Rfa
15 Oct 2008 21:16:42< Suiseiseki> like that
15 Oct 2008 21:16:44< Synergy> then we might not know
15 Oct 2008 21:16:47< wimt> My opinion is that any benefits (which I'm dubious of) would be outweighed by numerous potential disadvantages, so I would be against changing the status quo
15 Oct 2008 21:16:49<@Martinp23> Suiseiseki: Please follow the format.
15 Oct 2008 21:16:51< Suiseiseki> I am not User:suiseiseki, you know
15 Oct 2008 21:16:53< Suiseiseki> k
15 Oct 2008 21:17:01< Rinn> I'm against public logging because if we have too many public logs we'll have to get a public lumberjack to chop them all up and a public wheelbarrow to move them away.
15 Oct 2008 21:17:13< Neurolysis> Rinn - But seriously.
15 Oct 2008 21:17:29< Rjd|away> Support leaving things the way they are.
15 Oct 2008 21:17:31< skenmy> I'm for public logging. It would promote wiki<->IRC collaboration, allow the use of IRC discussions in on-wiki discussions (subject to local wiki policies), ensure a fair and true account of what is said (as opposed to out of context quotes used), and ensure an on-topic, friendly atmopshere in the channel (i.e. it could be used for IRC actions, not necessarily on-wiki actions)
15 Oct 2008 21:17:32< Synergy> the idea of logging real time conversations will result in a lot of failed RfA's ;p
15 Oct 2008 21:17:37 * Thehelpfulone is with wimt: *against*
15 Oct 2008 21:17:44< east718> Don't fix what isn't broken.
15 Oct 2008 21:17:53< Synergy> here here east718!
15 Oct 2008 21:17:56< CWii> I support Logging if It's hosted by Wikimedia and is done by a LogBot. It should also not be put on a mediawiki site.
15 Oct 2008 21:17:59< east718> *hear
15 Oct 2008 21:18:06 * east718 is a Grammar Nazi. (TM)
15 Oct 2008 21:18:08< Synergy> whatever, i'm drunk
15 Oct 2008 21:18:20< Synergy> (and yes i know thats logged)
15 Oct 2008 21:18:38-!- Mww113 [*hostmask*] has quit ["Have to go"]
15 Oct 2008 21:18:38<@Martinp23> 21:16:14 [@ChanServ ] [ Chenzw2 ] [ GDonato ] [ Neskaya ] [ Rjd|away ] [ werdan7 ] 21:16:14 [@Martinp23 ] [ chuck ] [ Golbez ] [ Neurolysis ] [ rw_ ] [ wimt ]21:16:14 [ [garden] ] [ cimon ] [ Goosebumps ] [ PeterSymonds] [ seanw ] [ worby ]21:16:14 [ agk-away ] [ CWii ] [ iMatthew ] [ Platonides ] [ skenmy ] [ ...
15 Oct 2008 21:18:38<@Martinp23> ... Yamakiri]21:16:14 [ Alexfusco5 ] [ east718 ] [ JohnReaves ] [ PseudoOne ] [ Submarine ]21:16:14 [ Aqwis ] [ eptalon ] [ JulianC93 ] [ publunch ] [ Suiseiseki ]21:16:14 [ Brownout ] [ evilchristel ] [ Matthewedwards] [ Qst ] [ Synergy ]21:16:14 [ CharlotteWebb] [ Farosdaughter] [ Mww113 ] [ Reedy ] [ Thehelpfulone]21:16:14 [ chb ] [ ...
15 Oct 2008 21:18:38<@Martinp23> ... FrancoGG ] [ MZMcBride ] [ Rinn ] [ Tjalling ] see above.
15 Oct 2008 21:18:43< Synergy> so whats next? we log conversations on aim and yahoo?
15 Oct 2008 21:18:43< evilchristel> Martinp23: my opinion, invaluable as it may be, is that as long as the channels are of a social nature public logging would have detrimental effects on the channels, it discourages people from participating openly, attracts attention seeking trolls and opens up to a whole host of new privacy concerns for the foundation.
15 Oct 2008 21:18:43<@Martinp23> ugly.
15 Oct 2008 21:18:51< Aqwis> wow, really?
15 Oct 2008 21:18:52< CWii> Oh come on!
15 Oct 2008 21:18:55< chb> yes?
15 Oct 2008 21:18:57< Reedy> lolo
15 Oct 2008 21:18:57< PseudoOne> hey :(
15 Oct 2008 21:19:01< Alexfusco5> o.o
15 Oct 2008 21:19:04< Suiseiseki> huh
15 Oct 2008 21:19:04< JulianC93> :O
15 Oct 2008 21:19:07< evilchristel> Synergy: engineer coming around tomorrow to bug your phone ;)
15 Oct 2008 21:19:08< [garden]> I would support moderated, restricted access to the logs in -en and wikipedia, as it would be helpful to quote harrassment which could have developed from Wikipedia. I also feel it would restrict the social feel of -en and wikipedia (something that has been going on for a long time)
15 Oct 2008 21:19:10< chb> hehe
15 Oct 2008 21:19:23< [garden]> Martinp23: what was that for?!
15 Oct 2008 21:19:27< Matthewedwards> what?
15 Oct 2008 21:19:28< Suiseiseki> ...
15 Oct 2008 21:19:28< CWii> Everyone remain on topic please.
15 Oct 2008 21:19:32< Aqwis> i support public logging because it would create epic amounts of drama.
15 Oct 2008 21:19:33< Aqwis> discuss
15 Oct 2008 21:19:34< Neurolysis> east718, I have a point for you after this period of structure is done.
15 Oct 2008 21:19:40< Rinn> I'm actually totally indifferent on the matter. I'm just here to annoy people!
15 Oct 2008 21:19:47<@Martinp23> Those who've just woken up: Now, while we're going on with this discussion, it's getting rather unstructured. What would be constructive now, without any actual debate just now, would be for everyone to post a oneliner on why they're for/against (or multiple small points). PLEASE DO NOT ENGAGE JUST YET ON THESE POINTS. (nor "agree with blah", I want to get a pciture of peoples' opinions).
15 Oct 2008 21:20:10< Submarine> I'm opposed to public logging because I don't want more drama.
15 Oct 2008 21:20:17< Aqwis> drama h8er, m8er
15 Oct 2008 21:20:22< Aqwis> uncool
15 Oct 2008 21:20:22< werdan7> I think public loggin would make people speak less freely and I'm very opposed to 'semi-public' logs that only a few people would have access to
15 Oct 2008 21:20:35< eptalon> I oppose public loggging. Channels are mostly social, the info in them is not likely to be important (past a certain time, like half an hour). Also, logs can potentially contain information that has to be considered private (like IP addresses). Storing this information (without a proper no-release policy, and users bound) might cause privacy issues. Unlogged channels permit to solve certain cases of problem users.
15 Oct 2008 21:20:37< Golbez> Is public logging even an issue?
15 Oct 2008 21:20:38< Rinn> Think of all the public trees that will be cut down just for our public logs!
15 Oct 2008 21:20:46-!- CWii [*hostmask*] has left #wikipedia-meetings ["Meh, this meeting is way outta hand. We need a more conrtoling system."]
15 Oct 2008 21:20:46< Submarine> We don't want words spoken on the spur of the instant being logged forever.
15 Oct 2008 21:20:47< JulianC93> Golbez: Yes
15 Oct 2008 21:20:50< Thehelpfulone> Aqwis: :|
15 Oct 2008 21:20:53 * Farosdaughter disagrees with public logging because of privacy concerns- like people's information getting posted without their consent and then being propagated across the net
15 Oct 2008 21:21:15< Golbez> JulianC93- Are we asking, "Should we maintain a public log", or are we saying, "Should we forbid others from making one"? I always thought it was the second.
15 Oct 2008 21:21:18< Neurolysis> Farosdaughter - I have a point for you when this one liner point is up as well
15 Oct 2008 21:21:21< werdan7> and for collaboration, there are more specific channels ( #wikipedia-spotlight and #wikipedia-en-roads for example)
15 Oct 2008 21:21:22< Submarine> Please keep in mind that messages sent on mailing-lists, often within a heated discussion, have been used by journalists and outsiders, out of context.
15 Oct 2008 21:21:32< JulianC93> Golbez: it's the first, mainly
15 Oct 2008 21:21:39< Aqwis> i also support stopping this discussion and vote to get this done with
15 Oct 2008 21:21:48< Golbez> Ah. Never mind then.
15 Oct 2008 21:21:49-!- Suiseiseki is now known as Suiseiseki|busy
15 Oct 2008 21:21:59< Neurolysis> Aqwis - A vote would be nice, yes.
15 Oct 2008 21:22:03< Rinn> Can I vote on both sides if we do a vote?
15 Oct 2008 21:22:09< ~Suiseiseki|busy> heh
15 Oct 2008 21:22:12<@Martinp23> Okay then. A quick summary might be that the points in favour are tha tit happens already, and it might foster wiki<->irc collab. Against are privacy concerns, "ain't broke" principle, stifling of social chat and wiki dramas.
15 Oct 2008 21:22:13< evilchristel> Martinp23: on that note, had it been a case of logging for support/faq reasons, and the channels being strictly support channels, i may not have been quite as opposed -- though, even then I think I would have preferred a different approach than full logs being publicized
15 Oct 2008 21:22:19< JulianC93> Rinn: Is that the same as neutral?
15 Oct 2008 21:22:20< Thehelpfulone> i think a vote would be too many edit conflicts
15 Oct 2008 21:22:29<@Martinp23> Have i missed anything?
15 Oct 2008 21:22:43< Rinn> JulianC93: It's more like hatred of both sides equally.
15 Oct 2008 21:22:50< skenmy> it would ensure a true and fair representation of what was said
15 Oct 2008 21:22:59< Thehelpfulone> Martinp23: nope, to not be biased, what's the "for" ?
15 Oct 2008 21:23:01< skenmy> i.e. the ability to search for previous discussions to establish context
15 Oct 2008 21:23:16<@Martinp23> Thehelpfulone: "the points in favour"?
15 Oct 2008 21:23:16< Golbez> JulianC93- I've been told in PM that it is in fact the second issue being debated, not the first.
15 Oct 2008 21:23:23<@Martinp23> evilchristel: nod, i agree.
15 Oct 2008 21:23:28< eptalon> Martinp23: What about use cases: Because of public logging we would be able to deal with this situation, without public logging that situation would be made easier?
15 Oct 2008 21:23:32< Synergy> I am against logging conversations in real time because its real people talking about a variety of topics that should not in any way be used for on wiki purposes. This is how its been done before, and this is how it should remain (so why change now?). If this is to force on topic conversation its a bad idea as there is no one topic and these channels are for like minded people to gather and...
15 Oct 2008 21:23:34< Synergy> ...speak their mind. All of it will be used in some way against you; whether it be for an RfA, or for an unrelated edit brought up on [[WP:DRAMA]].
15 Oct 2008 21:23:41-!- Suiseiseki|busy is now known as Suiseiseki
15 Oct 2008 21:23:58<@Martinp23> eptalon: we probably wouldn't be able to agree on them! :p
15 Oct 2008 21:24:07 * Synergy sips his vodka
15 Oct 2008 21:24:15< skenmy> Is it just me or is having someone so heavily biased leading this discussion rather counter-intuitive? Have I misread your position, Martinp23?
15 Oct 2008 21:24:32< wimt> ??
15 Oct 2008 21:24:40< cimon> My quick oneliner: For publicity that is complete, no ifs and buts, no hurdles or verify on demand or make a request with a substantive interest. Just totally public or not at all. Reason: time for transparency is now. It is the only way.
15 Oct 2008 21:24:41< eptalon> Martinp23: Which illustrates the very problem.
15 Oct 2008 21:24:42< Neurolysis> skenmy - You don't like it because he has a point of view? =/
15 Oct 2008 21:24:48< skenmy> Never said that :)
15 Oct 2008 21:24:50< Rinn> You should get me to lead the discussion!
15 Oct 2008 21:24:54< werdan7> I think anyone is going to have an opinion on this
15 Oct 2008 21:24:58< Golbez> #wikipedia is a public channel; to forbid "public logging" is insane. I also question whether it's even an issue anymore. If you want to have a private conversation, go to a private message or channel. I guess then the quesiton is, do we maintain our own public logs, to combat those who would make them?
15 Oct 2008 21:24:59< Rinn> I don't have any points of view!
15 Oct 2008 21:25:02< Neurolysis> werdan7 - Rinn doesn't :|
15 Oct 2008 21:25:07< skenmy> Martinp23 is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else in this channel
15 Oct 2008 21:25:14< Synergy> oh wait, it was supposed to be a one liner? oops ;p
15 Oct 2008 21:25:43< evilchristel> skenmy: why are you so keen on being able to look up what people may or may not have said 6 years ago? are you one of these annoying people who, during a fight with your other half will go "but on january 17th 1988 you said foo and in july 2006 you did bar" ? (entirely unrelated, just a personal curiousity)
15 Oct 2008 21:25:47<@Martinp23> skenmy: I'd rather object to "heavily biased", as I agree with points on both sides, but I am against public logging. That said, I'm quite capable of determining consensus and am avoiding bias in any times I'm "leading" the discussion. If I've overstepped the mark, please do tell me (pm maybe), but you have to recognise that i'm also here to tak epart in the debate. :)
15 Oct 2008 21:25:52< Golbez> "Drama" is something that shouldn't even be considered as an issue.
15 Oct 2008 21:26:02-!- JohnReaves [*hostmask*] has quit []
15 Oct 2008 21:26:10< werdan7> Neurolysis: I suspect that he does, even if he doesn't admit it
15 Oct 2008 21:26:21< Synergy> Golbez: was that directed toward my statement?
15 Oct 2008 21:26:26< Rinn> She.
15 Oct 2008 21:26:27< skenmy> evilchristel, of course not. I *would* like to know background on discussions before plastering things over wiki, and IRC fosters disucssions on a wide range of topics.
15 Oct 2008 21:26:33< skenmy> Martinp23, fair enough :)
15 Oct 2008 21:26:40< wimt> skenmy, I'd also point out, that if anyone *really* wants to know the full context of all discussions, they would be quite able to privately log the channel themselves (as many already do)
15 Oct 2008 21:26:43< Golbez> Synergy- It was in response to Martinp23 saying "Against are privacy concerns, "ain't broke" principle, stifling of social chat and wiki dramas."
15 Oct 2008 21:26:44< Neurolysis> werdan7 - He's voting as a neutral party. I wasn't suggesting him to operate the channel, I wasn't being serious.
15 Oct 2008 21:26:47<@Martinp23> skenmy: but things don't get plastered all over the wiki.
15 Oct 2008 21:26:49< evilchristel> skenmy: why would you like to plaster anyones discussion on the wiki?
15 Oct 2008 21:26:52< Synergy> ah ok
15 Oct 2008 21:26:55< skenmy> wimt: not all of us have 24/7 connections
15 Oct 2008 21:26:59< Rinn> She, her!
15 Oct 2008 21:27:06< evilchristel> i certainly would never speak with you if i thought you wanted to do so with what was said
15 Oct 2008 21:27:10< skenmy> Martinp23, evilchristel, I think you may have misinterpreted me
15 Oct 2008 21:27:17< wimt> skenmy, there are ways to get around that fact though, with a bit of determination
15 Oct 2008 21:27:18< evilchristel> just as i wouldnt have a pint with you in the pub if you were carrying a tape recorder :)
15 Oct 2008 21:27:26< skenmy> I mean plastering *my* thoughts over wiki
15 Oct 2008 21:27:28< PseudoOne> :)
15 Oct 2008 21:27:35< skenmy> sorry I didn't make that clearer
15 Oct 2008 21:27:38<@Martinp23> Golbez: Hmm, okay. It's a point that's been brought up by a few people though, but your point is duly noted.
15 Oct 2008 21:27:40< wimt> Many services exist where you could run a 24/7 client at little or no cost
15 Oct 2008 21:27:45< cimon> Golbez: Drama, like life, finds a way. </Jurassic Park>
15 Oct 2008 21:27:51< PseudoOne> evilchristel drinks beer :o
15 Oct 2008 21:27:55< evilchristel> skenmy: well, if they are only your views, then surely you can do what you wish with them?
15 Oct 2008 21:28:00< skenmy> wimt: but why when we could have a service that anyone could use at no cost?
15 Oct 2008 21:28:10< Neurolysis> evilchristel - I think I means evidence for his views
15 Oct 2008 21:28:11< skenmy> evilchristel, I like to research before I comment.
15 Oct 2008 21:28:11< evilchristel> PseudoOne: cant be a nice pint of ale or five!
15 Oct 2008 21:28:12< wimt> skenmy, because of the potential disadvantages
15 Oct 2008 21:28:19< PseudoOne> or FIVE :D
15 Oct 2008 21:28:30< skenmy> I can't actually see any disadvantages as long as this is handled correctly
15 Oct 2008 21:28:38<@Martinp23> Okay, we've done this bit already I think skenmy, wimt.
15 Oct 2008 21:28:42< cimon> Currently we are at the stage that most drama is caused by silly attempts to quench the creation of drama.
15 Oct 2008 21:28:45< wimt> Indeed
15 Oct 2008 21:28:46< eptalon> Perhaps I am being provocative now: What problem could be solved by a public log?
15 Oct 2008 21:28:58< skenmy> evilchristel, note that I don't mean cite IRC discussions in my comments on-wiki, but rather get a feel of consensus
15 Oct 2008 21:29:01< PseudoOne> What would keep people from editing or modifying a log?
15 Oct 2008 21:29:03< Rinn> evilchristel: You see, now someone's going to revert one of your edits on the basis of you being a deplorable drunk.
15 Oct 2008 21:29:08< Synergy> eptalon: i'm awaiting that one too
15 Oct 2008 21:29:10< Neurolysis> eptalon - It's not what problems could be solved, it's what benefits could be reaped
15 Oct 2008 21:29:20< skenmy> PseudoOne, absolutely nothing.
15 Oct 2008 21:29:25< eptalon> Neurolysis: If it aint broke...
15 Oct 2008 21:29:28< skenmy> Hence why this needs to be managed correctly
15 Oct 2008 21:29:35< Neurolysis> eptalon - I strongly disagree with that argument
15 Oct 2008 21:29:37< Synergy> Neurolysis: so then, what are the benefits of public logging?
15 Oct 2008 21:29:40< evilchristel> eptalon: we'd waste less time having meetings about public knowledge *and* we'd spend less socialising in #wikipedia because we dont dare speak, may improve edit counts!
15 Oct 2008 21:29:50-!- rw_ [*hostmask*] has quit [Connection timed out]
15 Oct 2008 21:30:06< PseudoOne> haha no they'd just find something else to do ;)
15 Oct 2008 21:30:15< skenmy> It may have been lost in the backscrol, but I did propose not logging #wikipedia, and instead logging -en and other more specific channels
15 Oct 2008 21:30:21< skenmy> that way the logs are project specific
15 Oct 2008 21:30:25< Neurolysis> Synergy - People have constant logs, not just from when they are online, people new to IRC can see what it's like before they start, if someone references something it can be check up on... loads of things
15 Oct 2008 21:30:30< skenmy> rather than catching the chitterchat in #wikipedia
15 Oct 2008 21:30:31< Neurolysis> *something on IRC
15 Oct 2008 21:30:39< eptalon> Neurolysis: You may. What I want is a use case (sometimes called scenario) where public logging could help.
15 Oct 2008 21:30:48-!- PeterSymonds [*hostmask*] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0.3/2008092417]"]
15 Oct 2008 21:30:55< Synergy> actually, the reason i log onto is to chat in real time with regular users and "shoot the shit" so to speak, and if i wanted to edit i would
15 Oct 2008 21:31:04< Neurolysis> eptalon - See my above point
15 Oct 2008 21:31:08< evilchristel> Rinn: ah, somone signed me up for some AA style news letter after i'd mentioned the amount of alcohol consumed during the stag party of the FSF community manager
15 Oct 2008 21:31:30< Synergy> Neurolysis: right but, who cares what was said? it can still be doctored
15 Oct 2008 21:31:33<@Martinp23> skenmy: Your idea of closer irc<->wiki collaboration (a la ubuntu, perhaps), is interesting but may be some time off in the future. I'd be more inclined to examine the situation from where we are now, rather than having this as a stepping stone to such a situation
15 Oct 2008 21:31:38<@Martinp23> (changes onwiki would be needed first)
15 Oct 2008 21:31:46< eptalon> Neurolysis: But if i just joined, and something was referenced that I misse,d would it not be natural to just ask?
15 Oct 2008 21:31:49< skenmy> hence my "subject to local policy"
15 Oct 2008 21:31:51< [garden]> I'm off for a while
15 Oct 2008 21:31:59< Neurolysis> eptalon - Rehanded information.
15 Oct 2008 21:31:59< skenmy> we need to provide the tools before wiki will adopt it
15 Oct 2008 21:32:06< wimt> Worth noting, as werdan7 pointed out, there already exist specific collaboration-oriented channels
15 Oct 2008 21:32:18<@Martinp23> wikipedia is a lot more fractive than wikinews :(
15 Oct 2008 21:32:30< eptalon> Neurolysis: Humans are able to handle I said that you said, that I said.
15 Oct 2008 21:32:30< skenmy> I'm speaking wholly as a wikipedian here
15 Oct 2008 21:32:33< skenmy> not a wikimedian
15 Oct 2008 21:32:33< PseudoOne> hm
15 Oct 2008 21:32:43< Neurolysis> eptalon - Not always without bias, though.
15 Oct 2008 21:32:47-!- [garden] [*hostmask*] has quit ["The fact the nobody understands you does not make you an artist."]
15 Oct 2008 21:32:56< eptalon> Neurolysis: plus if different people told, the gist will surface pretty quickly.
15 Oct 2008 21:33:10< Neurolysis> eptalon - Still, it's not necessary.
15 Oct 2008 21:33:20< Neurolysis> eptalon - Why get rehanded information when you can see it first hand?
15 Oct 2008 21:33:52<@Martinp23> Neurolysis: there are some benefits but the argument seems to be that the negatives outweigh them by far.
15 Oct 2008 21:33:55< Synergy> wait a minute, who really cares if someone is talking behind your back?
15 Oct 2008 21:33:59<@Martinp23> It is something to consider.
15 Oct 2008 21:34:07< Synergy> seriously people, this is just crazy
15 Oct 2008 21:34:10< Neurolysis> Martinp23 - The argument, what argument?
15 Oct 2008 21:34:15< skenmy> I have an idea for an alternative proposal that possibly suits everyone, but I think it falls outside the scope of this discussion
15 Oct 2008 21:34:19<@Martinp23> Neurolysis: the "anti logging" argument.
15 Oct 2008 21:34:20< skenmy> Martinp23, not from my POV :)
15 Oct 2008 21:34:36< Thehelpfulone> skenmy: go ahead
15 Oct 2008 21:34:38< Synergy> skenmy: {{fact}}
15 Oct 2008 21:34:56< werdan7> if you're really that interested in knowing everything that's been said in the channel, there are free bouncers/shell acounts available. I don't think your personal preference should mean having public logs
15 Oct 2008 21:35:00<@Martinp23> skenmy: Hmm, may want to wait until an ops' meeting or something first then.
15 Oct 2008 21:35:02< Neurolysis> Martinp23 - How could that not be the scope of the anti logging movement? They're hardly going to say 'the positives outweigh the negatives'... I don't understand
15 Oct 2008 21:35:12< skenmy> Martinp23, it's more a Meta thing
15 Oct 2008 21:35:15<@Martinp23> Neurolysis: Nevermind then, I was being unclear probably.
15 Oct 2008 21:35:18< skenmy> I'll write it up at some point
15 Oct 2008 21:35:21<@Martinp23> k
15 Oct 2008 21:35:32<@Martinp23> Right.
15 Oct 2008 21:35:40-!- WaRpAtH [*hostmask*] has joined #wikipedia-meetings
15 Oct 2008 21:35:49<@Martinp23> I think we've done this whole debate to death (and some of the aprticipants no doubt) over the course of the last hour.
15 Oct 2008 21:35:52<@Martinp23> Thanks for coming everyone.
15 Oct 2008 21:36:10< skenmy> basically, it would be the approval in certain communities (whether it be wikiprojects, wikipedias, or other wikimedia projects) that certain channels can be logged for use on-wiki
15 Oct 2008 21:36:13<@Martinp23> We'll have another meeting in a different timezone next week, after we've all had time to digest everything and publish minutes.
15 Oct 2008 21:36:15< skenmy> thus centralising the logging system
15 Oct 2008 21:36:18< eptalon> Lets hope the positions are at least clearer now.
15 Oct 2008 21:36:37< skenmy> and logging of a channel would be on-request
15 Oct 2008 21:36:41<@Martinp23> If you like, we can have a vote. If you don't like the idea, don't participate. No need to argue.
15 Oct 2008 21:36:45< werdan7> skenmy: as I said, some wikiprojects have there own channels
15 Oct 2008 21:36:45< Synergy> Martinp23: are you kicking everyone out? O.O
15 Oct 2008 21:36:47<@Martinp23> skenmy: maybe something for the next meeting.
15 Oct 2008 21:36:53< skenmy> Martinp23, indeed
15 Oct 2008 21:36:53< Neurolysis> Vote. Great idea, lets do it
15 Oct 2008 21:36:57< werdan7> and they can decide logging on their own
15 Oct 2008 21:37:03< skenmy> Voting is evil.
15 Oct 2008 21:37:08< skenmy> Now is not the time for a vote
15 Oct 2008 21:37:17< Rinn> I vote we vote whether to vote or not.
15 Oct 2008 21:37:18< Neurolysis> skenmy - Don't participate in it then/.
15 Oct 2008 21:37:22<@Martinp23> skenmy: " don't participate. No need to argue."
15 Oct 2008 21:37:22< Aqwis> now is the time for a vote
15 Oct 2008 21:37:23< Aqwis> definitely.
15 Oct 2008 21:37:32<@Martinp23> All those for public logging, say "aye".
15 Oct 2008 21:37:32< Neurolysis> Yeah, vote sounds good
15 Oct 2008 21:37:32< Synergy> voting is evil is about the same as "if it ain't broke..."
15 Oct 2008 21:37:35< evilchristel> aye
15 Oct 2008 21:37:35<@Martinp23> (this is just for fun)
15 Oct 2008 21:37:37< eptalon> People, we are talking about PUBLIC logging, to somene using their irc client to write a text file.
15 Oct 2008 21:37:40< evilchristel> ;)
15 Oct 2008 21:37:44< evilchristel> (no, not really)
15 Oct 2008 21:37:47< skenmy> aye
15 Oct 2008 21:37:56< Synergy> nay
15 Oct 2008 21:37:59< Thehelpfulone> evilchristel: :P
15 Oct 2008 21:38:01< Rinn> Naye!
15 Oct 2008 21:38:02<@Martinp23> all against say neigh.
15 Oct 2008 21:38:04< Neurolysis> Martinp23 - If you are going to init. vote, could you +m and notify people?
15 Oct 2008 21:38:06< evilchristel> Thehelpfulone: hehe
15 Oct 2008 21:38:08< evilchristel> neigh
15 Oct 2008 21:38:09< Synergy> nay
15 Oct 2008 21:38:10< Thehelpfulone> neigh
15 Oct 2008 21:38:11< eptalon> neigh
15 Oct 2008 21:38:13< Synergy> neigh
15 Oct 2008 21:38:16< wimt> nein
15 Oct 2008 21:38:20< JulianC93> Against what? (Sorry, just came back)
15 Oct 2008 21:38:21< Thehelpfulone> Martinp23: why odn't you just voice the ones who want it :P
15 Oct 2008 21:38:24< Thehelpfulone> JulianC93: public logging
15 Oct 2008 21:38:27< Synergy> JulianC93: !
15 Oct 2008 21:38:35< Thehelpfulone> that way, there'll be only 1 or a few ;)
15 Oct 2008 21:38:41< Neurolysis> aye!
15 Oct 2008 21:38:42<@Martinp23> all for public logging say aye, all against say nay.
15 Oct 2008 21:38:42< Rinn> I'm against world hunger.
15 Oct 2008 21:38:43< werdan7> I vote nay (I thought neigh is what a horse does? )
15 Oct 2008 21:38:50< Synergy> nay
15 Oct 2008 21:38:54< skenmy> aye
15 Oct 2008 21:38:56< evilchristel> werdan7: funny, i just made fun of him for that elsewhere
15 Oct 2008 21:38:56< Rinn> Horses do lots of other things~ <3
15 Oct 2008 21:38:58< eptalon> nay
15 Oct 2008 21:39:01< east718> nope
15 Oct 2008 21:39:06<@Martinp23> Neurolysis: i'd fair that'd make people think this is official.
15 Oct 2008 21:39:07<@Martinp23> Okay.
15 Oct 2008 21:39:10<@Martinp23> Interesting.
15 Oct 2008 21:39:10< werdan7> evilchristel: ^5
15 Oct 2008 21:39:12< Synergy> ( i saw more no's than yes's)
15 Oct 2008 21:39:12<@Martinp23> Thanks everyone.
15 Oct 2008 21:39:15< Platonides> nay
15 Oct 2008 21:39:21 * JulianC93 votes aye
15 Oct 2008 21:39:22< Neurolysis> Thanks for organising this martinp23
15 Oct 2008 21:39:28< cimon> aye
Prior to the meeting, in PM, due to planned absence:
20:13:51 <Neskaya> One. Even if public logging is officially maintained by us, there is still going to be the opportunity for quotes from logs to be taken out of context. I'm aware that this already happens, however we will be opening up the opportunity for it and maybe even condoning it by logging the channel. 20:14:57 <Neskaya> Two. IRC is not Wikipedia. It's restrictive to hold an entire channel to the standards of conduct required on wiki. I understand that although we may not be doing this expressly by allowing public logging, allowing or logging ourselves makes it one step closer to somebody else suggesting that things like AGF are followed on the IRC. 20:16:51 <Neskaya> Continuation of two. Conversations happen on IRC. Oftentimes these conversations may be about people who are not on IRC at the moment; occasionally these conversations enter the grounds of what I consdier to be libel. Public logging would make it incredibly difficult to make sure that these comments never reach the general view, as even once an op has dealt with the offending party, the log is still going to be published, say at 00:00 UTC. 20:17:14 <Neskaya> Continuation of two, again. 20:18:09 <Neskaya> Conversations happen, and as well as libel, people end up accidentally releasing public information. I have managed a publicly logged channel on a small scale, and there is no good way for incidents to be removed from the logs. 20:19:35 <Neskaya> Three. There is no possible way of setting up a system to have accidentally released information removed from the logs before they are first published. Even if the person who runs the logs is on IRC 24/7/365, it will not be possible for them to remove every accidental post before the log goes live. Once the log goes live, the information has been released and potentially archived by dozens of other sites, and therefore the information inside of