Essays Low‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages Low This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Guidelines are supposed to be actionable. Is this actionable? I think it might better off as a simple project space page and not a guideline or policy. --Iamunknown 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "action" would be in reporting items of personally identifiable information through an email to an Admin or WP:OVERSIGHT. As a guideline, it is mainly intended for noobs and people unfamiliar with how personal security functions operate on WP... rather than for people who already know what to do in such situations. It is intended to be "actionable" in a prescriptive, rather than a proscriptive sense. (WP:Harassment already covers the proscriptive end adequately.) Best,—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 22:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, excellent distinction, and I think well put. I thought of that (but not as clearly), but then thought how most of our guidelines are actionable in a proscriptive sense. There is certainly room for prescriptive guidelines. --Iamunknown 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed... I think the placename "Security" sounds like an appropriate umbrella term of which the content on both pages are specific elements. However, keeping the content areas seperate would allow for more respective specialization... Also, this page was intended as a guideline and not as an enforcable "policy" per se... it is mainly a deriative adaptation of elements of the Wikimedia foundation's privacy policy and as such was not intended to supercede the WF's policy, only adapt it more specifically for personal security conventions and dynamics on en.wiki. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 01:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff largely got moved out of WP:SECURITY out of a desire of some contributors for WP:SECURITY to become a policy page. I don't favor such policy proliferation but let's keep the pages separate while we see what happens over there. 75.62.6.237 05:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before the debate with WP:PASSWORD started I openly scraped the WF's privacy policy here: [1], mainly out of motivations concerning this conversation here Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Part_two. Sidaway since proposed merging the texts, but the only addition so far from there has been "Password security tips" [2], which I think is fine so far as this page goes.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 06:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing WP:SECURITY got from WP:PARANOIA is the cute redirect:[3]—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 06:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intention in getting some version of it to guideline status was to allow for links to the page from "welcome" template messages sent to newbies. So far, all the internal links in welcome templates go to policy pages having to do with "editing the encyclopedia," without warning for the possible real life dangers that could occur in conjunction with that. WP, due to its openness, is no more secure than Myspace as a social environment, but I think, due to its collaborative culture, it can also approach personal security matters in a more proactive rather than reactive way, i.e. not only by "blocking" known stalkers and "oversighting" personal information after any exposure or personal threat has already occurred. I think it would be better for everyone involved in WP if there was far more awareness of personal security practices among people new to WP and possibly even the internet, as this may help to prevent oversightable incidents from occuring in the first place.

Also, there has been no extensive debate over this. I'd like to keep the "proposal tag" until I can respond to any concrete reasons why this shouldn't become a guideline. Thanks,—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be a guideline, or some more "elevated" status than just an essay. AcademyLeader, how would you feel about adding some mention into this article that children should be especially careful with their information and activities on Wikipedia? (See WP:YOUTH) 6SJ7 23:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. On a first impression, telling children to be especially careful seems a little beanish, and impossible to gauge anyway, as age is self-reported. (Parents, possibly, should be made aware of what their kids are doing, but I don't see a way of doing that unless they also have an WP account and self-disclose.) However, I'd like this to be written in a universal language children could easily understand. Currently every time I log in there is practical information re: password security. To me, what is needed is a similar pragmatic notice or admonishment re: "revealing personal information" when people log in. There have apparently been enough instances of real-life stalking or harassment for this to be an issue, but so far WP's only visible response has been to police whatever signs or signals a digital stalker might leave on WP, after the stalking is already in effect. The whole of Wikipedia would be much better off if everyone received some fair warning or other admonishment re: personal information immediately when they log in or when they first register an account here. To me, the information contained in the "nutshell" adequately conveys the message that I think should be common knowledge to every Wikipedian. The site should not simply "assume" it is. Best,—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I support your concept, regardless of the exact words used. However, having observed the Wikipedia "policy process" long enough, it seems to me that this "process" will have no impact on whether that sort of information is added to the log-in screen. You may wish to take the direct approach and write to the Developers, and if they (or someone else in the "Office", I am not sure which) decide it is a good idea, they will do it, and if they don't, it won't get done. Assuming that it does not get done as a result of your request, it will eventually, but only after there are documented instances (probably accompanied by 24/7 media coverage) of Wikipedia being misused in the manner that you describe. After all, the "password security" information was added to the log-in screen only after there were several instances of accounts being compromised. 6SJ7 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of hoped that this would have gotten swept up without me... The thing is, I don't actually have much time these days to edit the encyclopedia, so I don't have much "standing" as it were, with people here. I left a note regarding this on Jimbo's talk page, but so far no response from him. I am afraid it may take some mainstream media "documented instance" of wiki stalking that leads to a capital offense of some kind before people take it seriously, and then they might not "make the leap" to simply admonish users from posting personal information in the first place! This is only a small thing that could be done, but if it actually does get anyone to think before broadcasting their personal details online it may prevent worse things from occurring... And, probably not "if" but "when" a WP-connected real world criminal offense/media event of some sort does eventually happen, the WP foundation could point to this notice and say "we provided fair warning to all our registered users regarding personal information every time they log on."

Would you mind posting to WP:OFFICE? So far none of my messages had been very effective, and it might be better if more than one person seemed to be pushing this.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good essay. I suggest linking it more widely and advertising in places like the relevant Wikipedia:Village pump section and the policy section of Wikipedia:Requests for comments. Carcharoth 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I know, it's not a policy, but still, those are the best places to canvass opinions, as well as the talk pages of the related pages you link to at the bottom. Carcharoth 12:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that: [4], [5]. User security isn't the kind of thing people are interested in unless it's obviously been violated already. Then, there is a huge leap to ascribing this behavior to trolls and showing "compassion" for victims rather than thinking about providing users with any warning regarding sharing or displaying information that could have prevented the situation in the first place. It truly boggles the mind.

But there is hope. I recently emailed Jimbo on the idea of putting a "personal info advisory" on initial log-in pages like there is currently with "secure your account" password info, and he wrote back saying he agreed with the concept so I hope this does lead to something. It would really only be a small thing, but if doing so causes anyone to think before revealing personal details about themselves who knows how many problems it could prevent down the line?—AL ^FOCUS! 18:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the neutrality of the essay and the distinction between its information and that of guidelines. However, if it is permitted, it would be helpful to hear some scenarios or opinions about using pseudonyms for security purposes. My contributions are quite modest and haphazard. I don't see how the things I do as an editor could be used against me out in the world, nor can I imagine how I might reveal personal information or compromise my online security. I use pseudonyms when I don't want my activity to be public. I use my real name when I do something publicly (to me, Wikipedia is a public, democratic space) or because I want credit for my contributions. Am I being naive? I'm pretty new around here, so thank you for educating me! CharlesTStokes (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]