Template talk:User Data - Revision history

SMcCandlish: /* Overcat bug */ D'oh.

2007-09-28T06:31:40Z

Overcat bug: D'oh.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:31, 28 September 2007
Line 50:		Line 50:
	:::We know that Wikipedia doesn't overcat, but we do. [[Cylon Raider (RDM)]], for instance, is in the Cylon Craft (RDM), Cylons (RDM), Cylon Craft, Cylon, RDM and A to Z cats (and even more), whereas in the Wikipedia scheme, Cylon Craft (RDM) would imply all others I listed. Since we consequently do this with articles, we also do it with user pages. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:23, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		:::We know that Wikipedia doesn't overcat, but we do. [[Cylon Raider (RDM)]], for instance, is in the Cylon Craft (RDM), Cylons (RDM), Cylon Craft, Cylon, RDM and A to Z cats (and even more), whereas in the Wikipedia scheme, Cylon Craft (RDM) would imply all others I listed. Since we consequently do this with articles, we also do it with user pages. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:23, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
	::::Best to check out [[Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Category_Rules\|BW:SAC]] [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 11:37, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		::::Best to check out [[Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Category_Rules\|BW:SAC]] [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 11:37, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
			:::::Ah, okay, I missed that point. Sorry for the false alarm! — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:31, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

	== Privacy consequences ==		== Privacy consequences ==

Shane: /* Overcat bug */

2007-09-27T16:37:21Z

Overcat bug

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 27 September 2007
Line 49:		Line 49:
	::I think I may have been misunderstood. The point was that if someone IS in (i.e. not excluding) the more narrow categories, there is no point to the person being listed in the larger encompassing category, since they are already in the subcategories. To exaggerate to make the point clearer, it would be like having a Wikipedia category called "People" with over a million articles in it, instead of (or, rather, in addition to) more narrow subcategories like "German pool players". [[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]] 22:40, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		::I think I may have been misunderstood. The point was that if someone IS in (i.e. not excluding) the more narrow categories, there is no point to the person being listed in the larger encompassing category, since they are already in the subcategories. To exaggerate to make the point clearer, it would be like having a Wikipedia category called "People" with over a million articles in it, instead of (or, rather, in addition to) more narrow subcategories like "German pool players". [[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]] 22:40, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
	:::We know that Wikipedia doesn't overcat, but we do. [[Cylon Raider (RDM)]], for instance, is in the Cylon Craft (RDM), Cylons (RDM), Cylon Craft, Cylon, RDM and A to Z cats (and even more), whereas in the Wikipedia scheme, Cylon Craft (RDM) would imply all others I listed. Since we consequently do this with articles, we also do it with user pages. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:23, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		:::We know that Wikipedia doesn't overcat, but we do. [[Cylon Raider (RDM)]], for instance, is in the Cylon Craft (RDM), Cylons (RDM), Cylon Craft, Cylon, RDM and A to Z cats (and even more), whereas in the Wikipedia scheme, Cylon Craft (RDM) would imply all others I listed. Since we consequently do this with articles, we also do it with user pages. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:23, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
			::::Best to check out [[Battlestar_Wiki:Standards_and_Conventions#Category_Rules\|BW:SAC]] [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 11:37, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

	== Privacy consequences ==		== Privacy consequences ==

Catrope: /* Overcat bug */ consequent behaviour

2007-09-27T14:23:51Z

Overcat bug: consequent behaviour

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 27 September 2007
Line 48:		Line 48:
	:This is done by design. You can not have those categories not show up by filling out the fields for exclusion. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 18:10, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		:This is done by design. You can not have those categories not show up by filling out the fields for exclusion. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 18:10, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
	::I think I may have been misunderstood. The point was that if someone IS in (i.e. not excluding) the more narrow categories, there is no point to the person being listed in the larger encompassing category, since they are already in the subcategories. To exaggerate to make the point clearer, it would be like having a Wikipedia category called "People" with over a million articles in it, instead of (or, rather, in addition to) more narrow subcategories like "German pool players". [[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]] 22:40, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		::I think I may have been misunderstood. The point was that if someone IS in (i.e. not excluding) the more narrow categories, there is no point to the person being listed in the larger encompassing category, since they are already in the subcategories. To exaggerate to make the point clearer, it would be like having a Wikipedia category called "People" with over a million articles in it, instead of (or, rather, in addition to) more narrow subcategories like "German pool players". [[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]] 22:40, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
			:::We know that Wikipedia doesn't overcat, but we do. [[Cylon Raider (RDM)]], for instance, is in the Cylon Craft (RDM), Cylons (RDM), Cylon Craft, Cylon, RDM and A to Z cats (and even more), whereas in the Wikipedia scheme, Cylon Craft (RDM) would imply all others I listed. Since we consequently do this with articles, we also do it with user pages. --[[User:Catrope\|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope\|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope\|e-mail me]])</sup> 09:23, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

	== Privacy consequences ==		== Privacy consequences ==

Serenity: /* Privacy consequences */

2007-09-27T11:09:03Z

Privacy consequences

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:09, 27 September 2007
Line 73:		Line 73:
	::::That Y/N thing would work well. As for the rest, I've noted above (in Beaudoin/Serenity sub-thread) that evidence seems to suggest they aren't being ''treated'' as optional. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:53, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		::::That Y/N thing would work well. As for the rest, I've noted above (in Beaudoin/Serenity sub-thread) that evidence seems to suggest they aren't being ''treated'' as optional. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:53, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
	::::::Maybe I will trim down the "paste code". That should reduce it. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 04:15, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		::::::Maybe I will trim down the "paste code". That should reduce it. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 04:15, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
			:::::::Looks better. :) Another silly thing with the parents field is that it's explained as "how many parents". In the character data template it's for ''who'' the parents are. Obviously that's not of interest in user data. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 06:09, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

SMcCandlish: /* Privacy consequences */ Typo self-fix.

2007-09-27T10:00:05Z

Privacy consequences: Typo self-fix.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:00, 27 September 2007
Line 51:		Line 51:
	== Privacy consequences ==		== Privacy consequences ==

	The e-mail address and birth date categories should be removed (e-mail, gmail, and any of the IM options that also equate to e-mail addresses at those service providers), as the addresses can be harvested by spammers (and the system already has a built-in safe e-mailing feature to begin with), and the full birth date information is simply too revealing and could become an identity theft vector, especially since real names are also made available by many users, too many of whom (especially kids) are not aware of the privacy consequences of being so revealing on wide open public forums. Also, the COPPA law (US) probably legslly restricts this site from revealing any such information about minors under 13 to begin with, which could be a liability issue (not to mention it encourages "cruising" by ~~only~~ pedophiles). [[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]] 16:37, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		The e-mail address and birth date categories should be removed (e-mail, gmail, and any of the IM options that also equate to e-mail addresses at those service providers), as the addresses can be harvested by spammers (and the system already has a built-in safe e-mailing feature to begin with), and the full birth date information is simply too revealing and could become an identity theft vector, especially since real names are also made available by many users, too many of whom (especially kids) are not aware of the privacy consequences of being so revealing on wide open public forums. Also, the COPPA law (US) probably legslly restricts this site from revealing any such information about minors under 13 to begin with, which could be a liability issue (not to mention it encourages "cruising" by online pedophiles). [[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]] 16:37, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

	: Use of the template is voluntary. And if you use the template, all the fields are voluntary. You don't have to fill every one of them out; you can cherry pick. If you look at it, no one ''needs'' to fill out anything on their user page. We're not like [[w:Citizendium\|Citizendium]] where you have to have a biography on your userpage. There's neither a policy nor anyone here who forces you to use the template, it's a choice. You do or you don't.		: Use of the template is voluntary. And if you use the template, all the fields are voluntary. You don't have to fill every one of them out; you can cherry pick. If you look at it, no one ''needs'' to fill out anything on their user page. We're not like [[w:Citizendium\|Citizendium]] where you have to have a biography on your userpage. There's neither a policy nor anyone here who forces you to use the template, it's a choice. You do or you don't.
Line 61:		Line 61:
	: On a similar tangent, there's nothing stopping anyone from revealing all the information in the infobox in a biographical blurb either. Although I will agree that we should probably notify users about the issues surrounding revealing their identities and age online. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 17:40, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		: On a similar tangent, there's nothing stopping anyone from revealing all the information in the infobox in a biographical blurb either. Although I will agree that we should probably notify users about the issues surrounding revealing their identities and age online. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 17:40, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

	::That the fields are voluntary wasn't the point, which rather was that the over-disclosing nature of some of the fields will be lost on naive users, who may suffer ill effects as a result. That [[Special:Emailuser]] can be used in the e-mail field isn't documented, so many users won't do it, and it still renders the field redundant, with the e-mail feature itself which appears in the left menus on the user pages of those who have turned the feature or; at very least the template field's documentation should ''advise'' using [[Special:Emailuser]] there, and should ''warn against'' putting bare e-mail addresses in such fields. As for COPPA, I wasn't meaning to be alarmist; just saying that the potential headache of such fields probably outweighs the benefits. Many people, including kids, will just fill them in because they are asked for, instead of thinking about it very deeply. Most wikis do not ask for such information in basic user templates, so it just kind of seems out-of-place here. While there's nothing stopping someone from just manually adding such info to their user page, or using little userboxes to do so, it seems likely that the extra work required to do this would cause more reflection. PS: Other fields seem not disconcerting but simply pointless, like how many siblings one has or (?!?) how many parents (I can't think of anyone I've ever heard of with less, or more, than two sets of chromosomes from two parental sources.) I.e., there's some really silly cruft in this thing. :-) Maybe my perspective is "too" Wikipedian, but if it doesn't help editing collaboration, it doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. PPS: The fact that the template asks about parents and siblings suggests strongly to me (re: COPPA, above) that there are in fact kids involved in this project (who else would think such questions were relevant on a wiki of this nature?), despite the somewhat mature nature of the show. [[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]] 22:53, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		::That the fields are voluntary wasn't the point, which rather was that the over-disclosing nature of some of the fields will be lost on naive users, who may suffer ill effects as a result. That [[Special:Emailuser]] can be used in the e-mail field isn't documented, so many users won't do it, and it still renders the field redundant, with the e-mail feature itself which appears in the left menus on the user pages of those who have turned the feature; or at very least the template field's documentation should ''advise'' using [[Special:Emailuser]] there, and should ''warn against'' putting bare e-mail addresses in such fields. As for COPPA, I wasn't meaning to be alarmist; just saying that the potential headache of such fields probably outweighs the benefits. Many people, including kids, will just fill them in because they are asked for, instead of thinking about it very deeply. Most wikis do not ask for such information in basic user templates, so it just kind of seems out-of-place here. While there's nothing stopping someone from just manually adding such info to their user page, or using little userboxes to do so, it seems likely that the extra work required to do this would cause more reflection. PS: Other fields seem not disconcerting but simply pointless, like how many siblings one has or (?!?) how many parents (I can't think of anyone I've ever heard of with less, or more, than two sets of chromosomes from two parental sources.) I.e., there's some really silly cruft in this thing. :-) Maybe my perspective is "too" Wikipedian, but if it doesn't help editing collaboration, it doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. PPS: The fact that the template asks about parents and siblings suggests strongly to me (re: COPPA, above) that there are in fact kids involved in this project (who else would think such questions were relevant on a wiki of this nature?), despite the somewhat mature nature of the show. [[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]] 22:53, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

	:::I agree that it should be better documented. Not much of an issue there. As for the fields themselves, the User Data template is, in fact, based off of the [[Template:Character Data\|Character Data]] template used in the character's articles. Actually, it started life as a copy-and-pasted version of that template, so that's where those "siblings" and "children" fields come from. There are two reasons for that development: 1) the Character Data template was being used on the user pages and 2) as such, it was easier to use the Character Data infobox as a guide for a User Data version than to build one from scratch. ;-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 22:59, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		:::I agree that it should be better documented. Not much of an issue there. As for the fields themselves, the User Data template is, in fact, based off of the [[Template:Character Data\|Character Data]] template used in the character's articles. Actually, it started life as a copy-and-pasted version of that template, so that's where those "siblings" and "children" fields come from. There are two reasons for that development: 1) the Character Data template was being used on the user pages and 2) as such, it was easier to use the Character Data infobox as a guide for a User Data version than to build one from scratch. ;-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 22:59, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Shane: /* Privacy consequences */

2007-09-27T09:15:45Z

Privacy consequences

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:15, 27 September 2007
Line 72:		Line 72:
	:::We can always change the email field to a '''Y''' for showing the "Click Here" for [[Special:EmailUser/Namehere]] and '''N''' not to show it. That's the only change I would make. Everything else is pretty much optionial, hence it being under the Optional documentation header. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 02:29, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		:::We can always change the email field to a '''Y''' for showing the "Click Here" for [[Special:EmailUser/Namehere]] and '''N''' not to show it. That's the only change I would make. Everything else is pretty much optionial, hence it being under the Optional documentation header. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 02:29, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
	::::That Y/N thing would work well. As for the rest, I've noted above (in Beaudoin/Serenity sub-thread) that evidence seems to suggest they aren't being ''treated'' as optional. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:53, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		::::That Y/N thing would work well. As for the rest, I've noted above (in Beaudoin/Serenity sub-thread) that evidence seems to suggest they aren't being ''treated'' as optional. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:53, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
			::::::Maybe I will trim down the "paste code". That should reduce it. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 04:15, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

SMcCandlish: /* Privacy consequences */ Replies.

2007-09-27T08:53:15Z

Privacy consequences: Replies.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:53, 27 September 2007
Line 69:		Line 69:
	:::::Well, problem is that most people use those two fields you mentioned. However, I do think that a general template reorganization may be in order. Let's wait to see what other people's thoughts are before undertaking such changes. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:38, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		:::::Well, problem is that most people use those two fields you mentioned. However, I do think that a general template reorganization may be in order. Let's wait to see what other people's thoughts are before undertaking such changes. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:38, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
	::::::I agree that the parents and siblings fields should go. Those are obvious and silly left-overs from the character template. But it should be possible to fix this. Aren't incorrect fields simply not displayed? So removing them from the template wouldn't break pages that use the field. A note about the danger of data miners and that the use of the Wiki email thingy is recommended is no problem either. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 02:26, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		::::::I agree that the parents and siblings fields should go. Those are obvious and silly left-overs from the character template. But it should be possible to fix this. Aren't incorrect fields simply not displayed? So removing them from the template wouldn't break pages that use the field. A note about the danger of data miners and that the use of the Wiki email thingy is recommended is no problem either. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 02:26, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
			:::::::Right; fields that don't match up with any code looking for them are simply ignored. No problem at all. PS: If most people really ''do'' use those two fields, then this supports my concern that people fill a bunch of them in reflexively because they think they are supposed to, whether the docs label them optional or not (this also relates to Shane's 02:29, 27 September 2007 (CDT) comment below). — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:53, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
	:::We can always change the email field to a '''Y''' for showing the "Click Here" for [[Special:EmailUser/Namehere]] and '''N''' not to show it. That's the only change I would make. Everything else is pretty much optionial, hence it being under the Optional documentation header. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 02:29, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		:::We can always change the email field to a '''Y''' for showing the "Click Here" for [[Special:EmailUser/Namehere]] and '''N''' not to show it. That's the only change I would make. Everything else is pretty much optionial, hence it being under the Optional documentation header. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 02:29, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
			::::That Y/N thing would work well. As for the rest, I've noted above (in Beaudoin/Serenity sub-thread) that evidence seems to suggest they aren't being ''treated'' as optional. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:53, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Shane: /* Privacy consequences */

2007-09-27T07:29:45Z

Privacy consequences

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:29, 27 September 2007
Line 69:		Line 69:
	:::::Well, problem is that most people use those two fields you mentioned. However, I do think that a general template reorganization may be in order. Let's wait to see what other people's thoughts are before undertaking such changes. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:38, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		:::::Well, problem is that most people use those two fields you mentioned. However, I do think that a general template reorganization may be in order. Let's wait to see what other people's thoughts are before undertaking such changes. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:38, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
	::::::I agree that the parents and siblings fields should go. Those are obvious and silly left-overs from the character template. But it should be possible to fix this. Aren't incorrect fields simply not displayed? So removing them from the template wouldn't break pages that use the field. A note about the danger of data miners and that the use of the Wiki email thingy is recommended is no problem either. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 02:26, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		::::::I agree that the parents and siblings fields should go. Those are obvious and silly left-overs from the character template. But it should be possible to fix this. Aren't incorrect fields simply not displayed? So removing them from the template wouldn't break pages that use the field. A note about the danger of data miners and that the use of the Wiki email thingy is recommended is no problem either. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 02:26, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
			:::We can always change the email field to a '''Y''' for showing the "Click Here" for [[Special:EmailUser/Namehere]] and '''N''' not to show it. That's the only change I would make. Everything else is pretty much optionial, hence it being under the Optional documentation header. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 02:29, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Serenity: /* Privacy consequences */

2007-09-27T07:26:43Z

Privacy consequences

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:26, 27 September 2007
Line 68:		Line 68:

	:::::Well, problem is that most people use those two fields you mentioned. However, I do think that a general template reorganization may be in order. Let's wait to see what other people's thoughts are before undertaking such changes. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:38, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		:::::Well, problem is that most people use those two fields you mentioned. However, I do think that a general template reorganization may be in order. Let's wait to see what other people's thoughts are before undertaking such changes. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:38, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
			::::::I agree that the parents and siblings fields should go. Those are obvious and silly left-overs from the character template. But it should be possible to fix this. Aren't incorrect fields simply not displayed? So removing them from the template wouldn't break pages that use the field. A note about the danger of data miners and that the use of the Wiki email thingy is recommended is no problem either. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 02:26, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: reply

2007-09-27T04:38:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:38, 27 September 2007
Line 66:		Line 66:

	::::Ah. Would it be objectionable to remove the cruft? — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 23:26, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		::::Ah. Would it be objectionable to remove the cruft? — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 23:26, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

			:::::Well, problem is that most people use those two fields you mentioned. However, I do think that a general template reorganization may be in order. Let's wait to see what other people's thoughts are before undertaking such changes. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:38, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:09, 27 September 2007
Line 73:		Line 73:
	::::That Y/N thing would work well. As for the rest, I've noted above (in Beaudoin/Serenity sub-thread) that evidence seems to suggest they aren't being ''treated'' as optional. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:53, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		::::That Y/N thing would work well. As for the rest, I've noted above (in Beaudoin/Serenity sub-thread) that evidence seems to suggest they aren't being ''treated'' as optional. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:53, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
	::::::Maybe I will trim down the "paste code". That should reduce it. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 04:15, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		::::::Maybe I will trim down the "paste code". That should reduce it. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 04:15, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
			:::::::Looks better. :) Another silly thing with the parents field is that it's explained as "how many parents". In the character data template it's for ''who'' the parents are. Obviously that's not of interest in user data. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 06:09, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:00, 27 September 2007
Line 51:		Line 51:
	== Privacy consequences ==		== Privacy consequences ==

	The e-mail address and birth date categories should be removed (e-mail, gmail, and any of the IM options that also equate to e-mail addresses at those service providers), as the addresses can be harvested by spammers (and the system already has a built-in safe e-mailing feature to begin with), and the full birth date information is simply too revealing and could become an identity theft vector, especially since real names are also made available by many users, too many of whom (especially kids) are not aware of the privacy consequences of being so revealing on wide open public forums. Also, the COPPA law (US) probably legslly restricts this site from revealing any such information about minors under 13 to begin with, which could be a liability issue (not to mention it encourages "cruising" by ~~only~~ pedophiles). [[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]] 16:37, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		The e-mail address and birth date categories should be removed (e-mail, gmail, and any of the IM options that also equate to e-mail addresses at those service providers), as the addresses can be harvested by spammers (and the system already has a built-in safe e-mailing feature to begin with), and the full birth date information is simply too revealing and could become an identity theft vector, especially since real names are also made available by many users, too many of whom (especially kids) are not aware of the privacy consequences of being so revealing on wide open public forums. Also, the COPPA law (US) probably legslly restricts this site from revealing any such information about minors under 13 to begin with, which could be a liability issue (not to mention it encourages "cruising" by online pedophiles). [[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]] 16:37, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

	: Use of the template is voluntary. And if you use the template, all the fields are voluntary. You don't have to fill every one of them out; you can cherry pick. If you look at it, no one ''needs'' to fill out anything on their user page. We're not like [[w:Citizendium\|Citizendium]] where you have to have a biography on your userpage. There's neither a policy nor anyone here who forces you to use the template, it's a choice. You do or you don't.		: Use of the template is voluntary. And if you use the template, all the fields are voluntary. You don't have to fill every one of them out; you can cherry pick. If you look at it, no one ''needs'' to fill out anything on their user page. We're not like [[w:Citizendium\|Citizendium]] where you have to have a biography on your userpage. There's neither a policy nor anyone here who forces you to use the template, it's a choice. You do or you don't.
Line 61:		Line 61:
	: On a similar tangent, there's nothing stopping anyone from revealing all the information in the infobox in a biographical blurb either. Although I will agree that we should probably notify users about the issues surrounding revealing their identities and age online. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 17:40, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		: On a similar tangent, there's nothing stopping anyone from revealing all the information in the infobox in a biographical blurb either. Although I will agree that we should probably notify users about the issues surrounding revealing their identities and age online. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 17:40, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

	::That the fields are voluntary wasn't the point, which rather was that the over-disclosing nature of some of the fields will be lost on naive users, who may suffer ill effects as a result. That [[Special:Emailuser]] can be used in the e-mail field isn't documented, so many users won't do it, and it still renders the field redundant, with the e-mail feature itself which appears in the left menus on the user pages of those who have turned the feature or; at very least the template field's documentation should ''advise'' using [[Special:Emailuser]] there, and should ''warn against'' putting bare e-mail addresses in such fields. As for COPPA, I wasn't meaning to be alarmist; just saying that the potential headache of such fields probably outweighs the benefits. Many people, including kids, will just fill them in because they are asked for, instead of thinking about it very deeply. Most wikis do not ask for such information in basic user templates, so it just kind of seems out-of-place here. While there's nothing stopping someone from just manually adding such info to their user page, or using little userboxes to do so, it seems likely that the extra work required to do this would cause more reflection. PS: Other fields seem not disconcerting but simply pointless, like how many siblings one has or (?!?) how many parents (I can't think of anyone I've ever heard of with less, or more, than two sets of chromosomes from two parental sources.) I.e., there's some really silly cruft in this thing. :-) Maybe my perspective is "too" Wikipedian, but if it doesn't help editing collaboration, it doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. PPS: The fact that the template asks about parents and siblings suggests strongly to me (re: COPPA, above) that there are in fact kids involved in this project (who else would think such questions were relevant on a wiki of this nature?), despite the somewhat mature nature of the show. [[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]] 22:53, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		::That the fields are voluntary wasn't the point, which rather was that the over-disclosing nature of some of the fields will be lost on naive users, who may suffer ill effects as a result. That [[Special:Emailuser]] can be used in the e-mail field isn't documented, so many users won't do it, and it still renders the field redundant, with the e-mail feature itself which appears in the left menus on the user pages of those who have turned the feature; or at very least the template field's documentation should ''advise'' using [[Special:Emailuser]] there, and should ''warn against'' putting bare e-mail addresses in such fields. As for COPPA, I wasn't meaning to be alarmist; just saying that the potential headache of such fields probably outweighs the benefits. Many people, including kids, will just fill them in because they are asked for, instead of thinking about it very deeply. Most wikis do not ask for such information in basic user templates, so it just kind of seems out-of-place here. While there's nothing stopping someone from just manually adding such info to their user page, or using little userboxes to do so, it seems likely that the extra work required to do this would cause more reflection. PS: Other fields seem not disconcerting but simply pointless, like how many siblings one has or (?!?) how many parents (I can't think of anyone I've ever heard of with less, or more, than two sets of chromosomes from two parental sources.) I.e., there's some really silly cruft in this thing. :-) Maybe my perspective is "too" Wikipedian, but if it doesn't help editing collaboration, it doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. PPS: The fact that the template asks about parents and siblings suggests strongly to me (re: COPPA, above) that there are in fact kids involved in this project (who else would think such questions were relevant on a wiki of this nature?), despite the somewhat mature nature of the show. [[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]] 22:53, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

	:::I agree that it should be better documented. Not much of an issue there. As for the fields themselves, the User Data template is, in fact, based off of the [[Template:Character Data\|Character Data]] template used in the character's articles. Actually, it started life as a copy-and-pasted version of that template, so that's where those "siblings" and "children" fields come from. There are two reasons for that development: 1) the Character Data template was being used on the user pages and 2) as such, it was easier to use the Character Data infobox as a guide for a User Data version than to build one from scratch. ;-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 22:59, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		:::I agree that it should be better documented. Not much of an issue there. As for the fields themselves, the User Data template is, in fact, based off of the [[Template:Character Data\|Character Data]] template used in the character's articles. Actually, it started life as a copy-and-pasted version of that template, so that's where those "siblings" and "children" fields come from. There are two reasons for that development: 1) the Character Data template was being used on the user pages and 2) as such, it was easier to use the Character Data infobox as a guide for a User Data version than to build one from scratch. ;-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 22:59, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:15, 27 September 2007
Line 72:		Line 72:
	:::We can always change the email field to a '''Y''' for showing the "Click Here" for [[Special:EmailUser/Namehere]] and '''N''' not to show it. That's the only change I would make. Everything else is pretty much optionial, hence it being under the Optional documentation header. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 02:29, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		:::We can always change the email field to a '''Y''' for showing the "Click Here" for [[Special:EmailUser/Namehere]] and '''N''' not to show it. That's the only change I would make. Everything else is pretty much optionial, hence it being under the Optional documentation header. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 02:29, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
	::::That Y/N thing would work well. As for the rest, I've noted above (in Beaudoin/Serenity sub-thread) that evidence seems to suggest they aren't being ''treated'' as optional. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:53, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		::::That Y/N thing would work well. As for the rest, I've noted above (in Beaudoin/Serenity sub-thread) that evidence seems to suggest they aren't being ''treated'' as optional. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:53, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
			::::::Maybe I will trim down the "paste code". That should reduce it. [[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 04:15, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:53, 27 September 2007
Line 69:		Line 69:
	:::::Well, problem is that most people use those two fields you mentioned. However, I do think that a general template reorganization may be in order. Let's wait to see what other people's thoughts are before undertaking such changes. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:38, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		:::::Well, problem is that most people use those two fields you mentioned. However, I do think that a general template reorganization may be in order. Let's wait to see what other people's thoughts are before undertaking such changes. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:38, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
	::::::I agree that the parents and siblings fields should go. Those are obvious and silly left-overs from the character template. But it should be possible to fix this. Aren't incorrect fields simply not displayed? So removing them from the template wouldn't break pages that use the field. A note about the danger of data miners and that the use of the Wiki email thingy is recommended is no problem either. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 02:26, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		::::::I agree that the parents and siblings fields should go. Those are obvious and silly left-overs from the character template. But it should be possible to fix this. Aren't incorrect fields simply not displayed? So removing them from the template wouldn't break pages that use the field. A note about the danger of data miners and that the use of the Wiki email thingy is recommended is no problem either. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 02:26, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
			:::::::Right; fields that don't match up with any code looking for them are simply ignored. No problem at all. PS: If most people really ''do'' use those two fields, then this supports my concern that people fill a bunch of them in reflexively because they think they are supposed to, whether the docs label them optional or not (this also relates to Shane's 02:29, 27 September 2007 (CDT) comment below). — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:53, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
	:::We can always change the email field to a '''Y''' for showing the "Click Here" for [[Special:EmailUser/Namehere]] and '''N''' not to show it. That's the only change I would make. Everything else is pretty much optionial, hence it being under the Optional documentation header. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 02:29, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		:::We can always change the email field to a '''Y''' for showing the "Click Here" for [[Special:EmailUser/Namehere]] and '''N''' not to show it. That's the only change I would make. Everything else is pretty much optionial, hence it being under the Optional documentation header. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 02:29, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
			::::That Y/N thing would work well. As for the rest, I've noted above (in Beaudoin/Serenity sub-thread) that evidence seems to suggest they aren't being ''treated'' as optional. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish\|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish\|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish\|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:53, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:29, 27 September 2007
Line 69:		Line 69:
	:::::Well, problem is that most people use those two fields you mentioned. However, I do think that a general template reorganization may be in order. Let's wait to see what other people's thoughts are before undertaking such changes. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:38, 26 September 2007 (CDT)		:::::Well, problem is that most people use those two fields you mentioned. However, I do think that a general template reorganization may be in order. Let's wait to see what other people's thoughts are before undertaking such changes. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki — ''New'']</sup> 23:38, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
	::::::I agree that the parents and siblings fields should go. Those are obvious and silly left-overs from the character template. But it should be possible to fix this. Aren't incorrect fields simply not displayed? So removing them from the template wouldn't break pages that use the field. A note about the danger of data miners and that the use of the Wiki email thingy is recommended is no problem either. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 02:26, 27 September 2007 (CDT)		::::::I agree that the parents and siblings fields should go. Those are obvious and silly left-overs from the character template. But it should be possible to fix this. Aren't incorrect fields simply not displayed? So removing them from the template wouldn't break pages that use the field. A note about the danger of data miners and that the use of the Wiki email thingy is recommended is no problem either. --[[User:Serenity\|Serenity]] 02:26, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
			:::We can always change the email field to a '''Y''' for showing the "Click Here" for [[Special:EmailUser/Namehere]] and '''N''' not to show it. That's the only change I would make. Everything else is pretty much optionial, hence it being under the Optional documentation header. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 02:29, 27 September 2007 (CDT)