Requests for comment/X!'s Edit Counter

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

---

(Translate!)

Currently, any editor must opt-in to allow other editors to see additional statistics in X!'s edit counter (for that editor). These additional statistics are

• (a) top namespace edits and
• (b) monthly edit statistics.

This opt-in was set up because of a law in Germany, where the toolserver is located. Since we are migrating everything from the toolserver to Wikimedia's labs (in the U.S.), this law isn't relevant anymore. There are editors who want to see the monthly stats and top namespace edits for everyone, not just for editors who have opted in.

The question is should we allow this (by disabling opt-in) or whether we should let users still have control over what can be seen in the edit counter (by keeping opt-in). A third option is to allow users to opt-out; if they don't, then all other editors could see their full statistics.

I feel the community should answer this question before taking any initative on this. This discussion has been raised on the English Wikipedia and the outcome is leaning towards removing opt-in requirement. Should the detailed edit counter remain as an opt-in or should it be an opt-out or not opt-able at all?—cyberpower ^Chat_Hello! 02:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record

This isn't referring to the toolserver version. The edit counter is being setup on Wikimedia labs. The change will apply to that.

Note also that all of the information that is used by these tools is publicly available and can be used by any person to create an identical tool on another non-WMF server, on which there would be no opt-in or opt-out.

For reference

This is an opted in result, this a not opted-in result. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep opt-in

1. It makes a difference whether detailed edit statistics can be theoretically derived from the available data or if they are easily presented without effort including graphs that display working periods. These graphs can reveal a lot about an editor and many editors would not feel comfortable with that. It could even have the consequence that editors are leaving. At the end, this is not just a legal question but also a question about what is important, i.e. to move forward to fulfill the misson of the WMF projects or to turn WMF into something like some other well known Internet sites that recklessly make accumulated user data available to third parties. The WMF takes a grand stand in regard to PRISM which states: Freedom of speech and access to information are core Wikimedia values. These values can be compromised by surveillance: editors and readers understandably are less willing to write and inform themselves as honestly and freely. Put simply, "rights of privacy are necessary for intellectual freedom." Please keep these core values alive and heed them. This was an opt-in for very good reasons, not just legal ones. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Nach den Erfahrungen mit US-Amerikanischen Behörden und dem fehlenden Respekt vor der Privatsphäre der Menschen sollte jegliche Weitergabe von Informationen auf Freiwilligkeit beruhen. --ST ○ 07:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
4. While the information is all public it is still very difficult to gather easily for the normal person and can give an awful ot away about a person. It is good practice to give someone the option to show that. I'M .... 'kinda' ok with an opt out but would prefer an opt-in. Jamesofur (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
5. There is no need for having detailed edit statistics. But, if someone want these information about himselfe or herselfe, he or she should say so. --Goldzahn (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
6. NNW (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
7. Keep opt-in. - Yes, the data is already available. But there is indeed a difference between that and analysis of the data supported by WikiMedia. Plus, people are too interested in this often (but not always) trivial data. See the numerous edit counters. Garion96 (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
8. --Kolossos (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
9. --Heiko (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
10. --Orci (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
11. --Polarlys (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
12. --Millbart (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I see no reason to abandon opt-in and agree with AFBorchert's statement above.
13. --Ephraim33 (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
14. --Atamari (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
15. --Bubo 容 10:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
16. There are people who take these statistics and try to turn them against you to fuel their personal attacks, it's a shame but it's like that. No need to make it easier for them. Plus, it's a big difference if somebody is spying on you in secret or if your profile is on open display for everybody. -- HvW (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
17. We should respect those contributors who do not wish to reveal too much information about themselves. Per AFBorchert above, it does make a difference whether information can be theoretically derived or whether information is readily analyzed in detail and publicly presented. --UV (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
18. --PigeonIP (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC) I am with all previous editors.
19. Like #7 --Morten Haan (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
20. --Steef ³⁸⁹ 12:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
21. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
22. --Varina (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC) like AFBorchert
23. XenonX3 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
24. --PerfektesChaos (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It is a legitimated interest to know whether a user is experienced or newcomer, and focussing on main space like encyclopedic articles, or on project issues, talk, files or template programming.
    • It is none of any users business at which time of the day someone is working, in which month higher or lower efforts occur. Is he unemployed? Is he ill, cannot sleep? Easy to be misused for judgement over users, who are human beings.
    • If you want to get an impression what an unknown user is dealing with, take a glance on recent 500 contributions and retrieve a manual glimpse on edit summaries, topics, minor edits, changes with thousands of bytes, reverts, recently inactive? It is okay to get such a feeling if you are going to elect a user, but you don’t need a detailed statistical analysis.
    • It is unjustified nosiness to achieve on simple click an exhaustive personal dissection, and tools provided by wmflabs shall not support snoopery.
    • Supporters of dropping opt-in haven’t been able yet to tell us any single reason for which good purpose they need such analysis of other peoples behaviour. With regard to contents and POV a monthly schedule and (as the tool has been able a couple of years ago) evaluation by time of the day gives no insight at all.
25. AFBorchert has exactly the same stance on this issue as i have. --Gnu1742 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)#:
26. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
27. or an opt-out option. --Túrelio (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
28. Raymond (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Per AFBorchert
29. nicht verboten, heißt noch lange nicht, dass es gut ist ...Sicherlich ^Post 14:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
30. Elvaube (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
31. per AFBorchert. --Sitic (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
32. --Dritte von links (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
33. --El bes (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Too much personal data would be available to anymone.
34. --Mauerquadrant (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
35. Per AFBorchert.--Aschmidt (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
36. Per AFBorchert -- Sozi (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
37. --Density (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
38. --Müdigkeit (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC) per AFBorchert.
39. Agreee wholeheartedly with the excellent first comment by AFBorchert. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
40. --Radiohörer (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Some User should have his privacy. Who want to provide his complete statistics to everyone can set the opt-in, all others don't need to set it. This method there is since many years so and should be continued. An opt-out will make many questions and upsets by users, which strictly look to their privacy and won't give any information for someone. This is my opinion to this topic.
41. Working on wiki is not a private area. --Mario7 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
42. "Others do it anyway" is a poor reason to do it as well. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
43. I see no reason to abandon opt-in and agree with AFBorchert's statement above. --Neozoon (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
44. Per AFBorchert FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
45. --Isderion (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
46. I think we should keep the opt-in, & continue to give Users the security, freedom and choice of opting-in to display their stats. And I like the clear & concise presentation of X!'s Edit Counter. JudyCS (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
47. I prefer this option because it gives me the freedom to choose, I don't find out sometime 3 years after creating an account that "Oh I didn't know I had the option to opt out". Also by opting in I am also confirming this is what I want to do and there is no opportunity for me to say "hey I didn't want to do that". Furthermore, I like the way it is set up now and the way it looks and if you change things then this might not be the case. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to "vote" Tattoodwaitress (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
48. All editors should have the option to opt-in or out. Each one should decide on its level of privacy.--Mariordo (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
49. Allowing editors to opt-in is a simple matter of choice, a choice everyone should be allowed to exercise. 98.211.0.95 04:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove opt-in and replace with opt-out

1. --Minihaa (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2. King jakob c 2 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove opt-in completely

1. Not private information, and data is available on wikichecker.com anyway. --Rschen7754 03:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2. There's no private data that I can think of. I don't see how a list of what pages I've edited is private data. Anybody could write a client-side tool to parse Special:Contributions to obtain this information... Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

   Sure. But if he comes out with these informations, he should be blocked by law or at court, as well as it should occur to Wikimedia in the comparable case. -- Sozi (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

   Lol, so reading Special:Contributions is a crime. --MF-W 18:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

   Rofl, maybe not in the states of Tempora or Prism. -- Sozi (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

3. No private data here. Stats can be aggregated from Special:Contributions...why make it harder when the data is already there. Jguy (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Though I agree that this data could possibly seen as a kind of invasion of privacy for individuals who do not expect their edits to become public, it is also already available through other means, so I think that's a moot point. Also, edits in mainspace are encyclopedic by nature, so who cares? I can't see a negative side, although it may be upsetting to future employers to see that someone has spent most of the past year editting "Game of Thrones" articles, I guess. That said, I strongly doubt that future employers are capable of looking up this tool - they are way more likely to check out their candidate's facebook page. I have always liked this tool for looking at my own edits, and I have often checked out what others have been up to. It's a great way to orient yourself quickly on the interests of other editors, and ~I think it would be great to have for teachers keeping track of student edits. Jane023 (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
5. No private data. --Holder (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
6. No private data and theres a big need for these statistics. -- Milad A380 (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

   Data available elsewhere anyway. Opt-Out would be ok for me, too. --89.204.154.36 09:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

   I'm sorry. No IPs please. This is for sockpuppeting reasons.—cyberpower ^Chat_Hello! 12:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

7. per Snowolf --Glaisher (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
8. There is really no data here that cannot be found in another way already. --MF-W 13:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
9. No remaining need for opt-in, although I think that an opt-out feature would be fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
10. I'm not sure I'm against an opt-out, but there shouldn't be a reason that one should need to opt-in. --Izno (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
11. Agreed with Snowolf. --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 14:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
12. see #2, #6 --Nyan ∗ Dog 15:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
13. per above. LlamaAl (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
14. Per snowolf. MBisanz ^talk 17:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
15. Per snowolf. Frankly it would be trivial to build and then host a version that doesn't include an opt-in, if people wanted. Ironholds (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
16. This seems a rather absurd discussion. This tool already exists on a non-WMF server without any option for participation, using freely available data feeds from the WMF. It seems rather silly to say that the publicly available feeds coming from the WMF cannot be analysed on WMF servers by WMF participants, when it's already been analysed on non-WMF servers. I'd rather have it here. Risker (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
17. Absolutely no private information is used here, so there is no need for a specific opt-in. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
18. Boogerpatrol (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
19. per Snowolf--Steinsplitter (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
20. per #1 and #2. There's nothing private here. ALH (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
21. as on #1 and #2. It's a shame people are using Wikimedia editing statistics for personal attacks. But as this data is already publicly available, I don't quite see the problem.--Paracel63 (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
22. per #1, #2, and 6; though were a user to be indefinitely blocked or banned completely, opt-out would be fine. Epicgenius (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
23. Uneeded as server is moved outside of German jurisdiction which prompted its inclusion. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 21:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
24. Data on editors' contributions should be widely available to combat POV pushing and similar problematic behaviour. There is no privacy issue as contributions are public record. This falls squarely in line with the foundations's privacy policy which reads: User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users edited and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users. Themfromspace (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
25. per Snowolf. --Ricordisamoa 22:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
26. Alan ^(talk) 23:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
27. Not private information. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
28. There is no private information, the information can already be compiled (albeit very monotonously) via other means, and this information is already available on WikiChecker. There really is no reason to restrict everyone from being able to see all of these statistics, and it can be very helpful to users. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
29. As others have said, anybody can come in and compile such information (with a little effort, of course) and it's essentially public information. APerson241 (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
30. This only gives public data, so there shouldn't be a problem, especially since other users could easily write a script to get and parse API content or get an account on Toolserver or Labs and query the database for similar info.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
31. Per Snowolf. —James (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
32. Per Snowolf and Rschen, as this information is already out there, and we're making it a lot more complicated in order to find something that some person could easily figure out on their own. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I should note that this only affects the version hosted on Wikimedia Labs, and not the Toolserver version which is bound by the TOS of Toolserver and is at the moment still the only version that supports all Wikimedia Wikis. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  Yes. That is correct. Once labs is fully setup, the toolserver version will be disabled.—cyberpower ^Chat_Hello! 02:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  I very much hope that that won't be the case, at least until we have some track record of labs stability now that they're getting more and more tools. There is no drawback to redundancy, especially when Wikimedia Labs for access to the Wikimedia Clusters' db is a very new feature with as of yet no track record in regards to stability. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  Seconded. Nothing wrong with a little bit of redundancy. Legoktm (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, at some point in 2014, WMDE will discontinue the toolserver so that staying is no option. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 09:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I posted a small notice at the Kurier about this RFC as this affects all editors. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Hmmmm, I'm not sure a vote on Meta-Wiki has the ability to control this. Can't I just write my own tool and do whatever I want? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  yes it does. I have access to these tools and can modify them. I started the RfC and I can determine the outcome. So I'm giving the community a chance to decide.—cyberpower ^Chat_Hello! 17:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  I do not understand your answer. What are you saying yes to? Risker (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  Yes as in, that this discussion on meta will influence the outcome of the tool. MZMcBride stated that a discussion will not have the power to change the tool. Since I started the discussion, and because I am now the lead maintainer, I simply stated that this discussion can change the tool, if consensus for this change is established.—cyberpower ^Chat_Hello! 19:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  Oh. Well, MZM is correct. This discussion doesn't change the tool. The only possible influence it has is in what version of the tool is hosted on WMFLabs. The tool already exists. Various forms of it already exist on non-WMF servers, and have no opt-in/opt-out. I think you're being disingenuous by completely failing to mention that ALL of the data is already publicly available and that WMF users not participating in the WMFLabs version means only that the info isn't on Labs. I believe there is a genuine misunderstanding, and that most people who are voting to keep the opt-in believe that means their information won't be accessible through the publicly available data. They are wrong. Risker (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  I thought that was implied. I didn't figure that people believed that the tool was displaying private information. From what I gathered, people, didn't appreciate stats like that being compiled on the spot, and so conveniently.—cyberpower ^Chat_Hello! 19:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  [1] and I am committed to do so. -- Sozi (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  Making legal threats can and will lead to a block. Threatening to convict me of a crime, will accomplish nothing.—cyberpower ^Chat_Hello! 19:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  Lol, I earn my money as graphic designer, not as Wikimedian. If the EC tangles with Google, Amazon, Microsoft et al, Wikimedia will be a minor opponent. Not you. You are not the problem. -- Sozi (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Don't know if this is germane to the discussion. The edit counter has always been appreciated. What I don't quite understand is why a user's edit count isn't handled by 'Contributions'. When you click on contributions it shows the latest edits, page-name/link where the edit was made, size of the edit, time and date of the edit, along with the edit summary. All these details come up instantly, never a replication lag, so why can't this same system simply keep track of the number of the edit involved? Seems it would lighten the work load for this edit counter which frequently is subject to replication lag. -- 98.119.101.103 21:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'd welcome such a solution as well.--Paracel63 (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Because it helps identify long term abuse and also meat & sock puppetry. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 21:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)