Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Transparency Report

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@PEarley (WMF): et al.

Moar transparency[edit]

I would like to see more detail on individual cases. Obviously we have to respect:

  • Legal requirements
  • Privacy of editors
  • Ethical requirements

But certainly in the case where my bot (en:User:SmackBot) had it's details requested by subpoena, I have no objection to publication of all information. (Incidentally I never heard whether the information was disclosed or not.)

Rich Farmbrough 16:52 12 August 2014 (GMT).


Secondly I think we should be careful about triumphalism. The lack of actions against our editors is due to many things:

  • Quality control
  • A culture that supports BLP policy
  • Respect for copyright
  • The difficulty of suing
  • The possible bad PR action "against Wikipedia" might bring

Simply because we have the ability to deny a request for take-down, for example, it does not follow that the person asking is a Bad Person. We should ensure that legitimate content complaints, whether legally enforceable or not, are forwarded to the community to review under their processes.

Rich Farmbrough 16:52 12 August 2014 (GMT).

Rich, thank you for the comments - I passed them on to the legal team (I just do the wikifying :)). They said will take this, and the above section, on board when putting together the next report. You are right that the best place for legitimate content complaints is with the community; many of these requests go on to the unsung heroes who volunteer with OTRS. A courteous and knowledgeable agent can save the editing community time, the legal team donor resources, and the requester much aggravation. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[]
Thanks for doing the passing on, and the Wikifying! Rich Farmbrough 21:19 13 August 2014 (GMT).

Vision statement[edit]

Any objection to substituting the VisionStatement for Jimmy Wales' original quote? The shift from "access" to "participate in" is significant, and a good deal of deliberation went into it; and it would also be nice to emphasize the governance structure of the WMF, rather than even such a significant individual. -Pete F (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[]

Problem with flags in the latest report[edit]

The latest (non-wiki) report has a display problem with some flags. They appear to be displaying only a portion of the flag rather than the whole image. On the user data section this affects the flag of the Philippines. On the content section it is affecting the flags of Japan, Czech Republic, Liechtenstein, Turkey, the Philippines (again) and possibly also Saudi Arabia. Thryduulf (talk: meta · en.wp · wikidata) 09:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[]

Translation template is broken & the latest report is incomplete for wikify[edit]

Hi @PEarley (WMF):,

I am in the middle of translation the series of transparency report, and I just notice that the latest link of transparency report (December 2016) is not available for translation. (See this diff) Where should I report the broken issue? Also it seems that there still two sections are not wikify for the latest transparency report (Request for User Data & Emergency Disclosures). It will be great if you can tell me when it will be ready. Thank you :)

--Liang(WMTW) (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[]

Liang, thanks for great work on translations, and checking in. We're looking at that translation issue you mention. On the other point, I just confirmed with my colleague in Legal who is preparing the wikified versions - she is still working on those two sections. We'll ping you when they are up, shouldn't be long ... Best - Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[]


Why is not the report of the year 2017 included in the article? --Hedda Gabler (eski) (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[]

Oh, excuse me! I've just realized. --Hedda Gabler (eski) (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[]

More recent reports?[edit]

Did the WMF stop doing these reports? There don't appear to be any transparency reports more recent than June 2017. (Pinging @RStallman (WMF) and Kbrown (WMF): who have posted previous reports.) --Yair rand (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[]

It was de-emphasized, nowadays it's in less visible and less wiki places such as this domain: Nemo 10:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Extraterritorial EU right to be forgotten[edit]

Judgment in Case C-507/17: Google LLC, successor in law to Google Inc. v Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

The operator of a search engine is not required to carry out a de-referencing on all versions of its search engine

It is, however, required to carry out that de-referencing on the versions corresponding to all the Member States and to put in place measures discouraging internet users from gaining access, from one of the Member States, to the links in question which appear on versions of that search engine outside the EU

Nemo 10:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[]