Policy talk:Privacy policy/Archive 1

third-party tracking change

The revision last year contained this change:

We are strongly committed to not sharing nonpublic information and Personal Information with third parties. In particular, we do not allow tracking by third-party websites you have not visited (including analytics services, advertising networks, and social platforms), nor do we share your Personal Information with any third parties for marketing purposes. Under this Policy, we may share your information only under particular situations, which you can learn more about in the “When May We Share Your Information” section of this Privacy Policy.

We are strongly committed to protecting users' Personal Information. Under this Policy, we may share your information only under particular situations, which you can learn more about in the "When May We Share Your Information" section of this Privacy Policy. In particular, we do not share your Personal Information for marketing purposes.

Does this mean that analytics services and social platforms may track users, now? Why was this change made, and what applications has it had, please? Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your question! This change in the Privacy Policy was made to simplify language. Tracking by third-party websites is still prohibited by the Privacy Policy. The Wikimedia Foundation is strongly committed to not sharing the Personal Information we collect from you (including your online activities and network interactions with Wikimedia Sites) with any third parties, except under the specific situations indicated in the “When May We Share Your Information” section of the Privacy Policy. For more information, please look at the “Do Not Track” FAQ. EMagallanes (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Old links

@GVarnum-WMF, projects in other languages ​​use the old links fr: es: ru: ja:... Chinese Wikipedia zh: refers to the English version, not the Chinese translation Psauopf (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Psauopf for the notice. There is a Phabricator ticket underway to address where wikis pull their links from for their footer. However, each wiki can override and set their own links, and it will take a little time to check and update all ~900 wikis within our ecosystem. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Seemingly unintentional redlink

Hello - it appears that there is a redlink under the Account Information & Registration section, hidden within the "More on Usernames" box. It seems to me that this is almost certainly unintentional, though I am not sure exactly where it should point. Tollens (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tollens: This has been fixed - thank you for the ping! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This page has reached the point where I would normally consider requesting it be semi-protected due to excessive vandalism. Do WMF staff watching this agree? Pppery (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps also semi-porotect Policy talk:Terms of Use this page as highly visible page. Thanks. SCP-2000 (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I am of two minds on this one. I tend to agree it is reasonable to do this to fight vandalism. But I am also aware it "in theory" prevents new community members from commenting on these policies. The unique possible long-term usage of this wiki is what I am hung up on.

Perhaps a semi-protect notice that directs people to the Babel page? I will ponder and perhaps test this a little and report back - but also very open to thoughts on if it is fair/reasonable to prioritize anti-vandalism efforts over commentary from new accounts. Or how we may be able to achieve both at the same time (linking to Babel as example). Although a link to Babel may just redirect where the vandalism is happening - my hunch is that's probably a "click too many" for enough vandals to deter the behavior enough for that to still be a gain. But - I also do not want to create too many barriers for reasonable engagement such that Foundation could be seen as deterring feedback (which is very much not our goal here). It is also entirely possible I am just overthinking this - but contextually - I would rather that than be legitimately called out for "underthinking" it. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 08:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As far as I can see, almost all edits on Policy talk:Privacy_policy and Policy talk:Terms of Use by non-auto-confirmed users were reverted in the past year, and here was semi-protected permanently before. Thus, I think semi-protection will only cause very little collateral damage.

Perhaps the semi-protection notice can direct people to the VRT email (infowikimedia.org) and the WMF email (answerswikimedia.org)? If they have any questions regarding Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects / Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, they could contact VRT / WMF directly. Even some people may send nonsense emails, these emails can be blocked by the spam filter. SCP-2000 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The aforementioned protection was while this page was still on Meta (and the protection wasn't carried over with the import. Pppery (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and implemented protections and display of this template on Policy talk:Privacy_policy and Policy talk:Terms of Use. Also open to Policy talk:Universal Code of Conduct and other high-traffic pages if it seems wise to do so at any point. Thank you all for your input! ----Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)