GuildWiki talk:Privacy policy

policy needed
Just noticed this in the foot bar, we should probably fill it &mdash; Skuld 07:10, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * For serious, I accidentally clicked the link and found an empty privacy policy page >.> I feel insecure now.-Onlyashadow, Top 100 11:56, 20 October 2006 (CDT)


 * We could port over a subset of the Wikipedia privacy policy. I think theirs is longer than we really require; but we should have something, and theirs is as good a place as any to use as a guide towards creating one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:04, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * You poor fellows...back in good ol' Russia, there is no such thing as privacy! No need. You young people just need to accept the fact, that Privacy is an unnecessary freedom! And don't make me reiterate my views on freedom -_-... Readem (talk *contribs ) 23:46, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

kersplat
thus spoke lawyer sarah. i hope it's sufficent. --Honorable Sarah 00:43, 29 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Sarah ftw! Readem (talk *contribs ) 22:12, 30 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I edited this slightly for brevity's sake. &mdash;Tanaric 14:31, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * (-2,853) slightly.... --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 20:52, 1 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Personally I prefer Sarah's version, even if it does have a lack of brevity. --Rainith 21:04, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * i'm bias'd, but the current version doesn't address tracking cookies or other personally identifiable information. i'm still worried about stabber-style "I know who you are, Mrs. Alberta Johnston of Poedunk, Ak!" problems. it's sad that all i remember of her is the catastrophy that caused her to leave. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 21:14, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I would say Sarah's version was more than verbose. It was intentionally using language to sound like a legal document; I can't call trying to sound like a lawyer when you're not anything but stupid.  I was the one to point it out to Tanaric and ask that he rewrite it (since I'm one of the two people it limits, I didn't want to do it myself).  --Fyren 21:18, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * On the current version: "IP addresses are only used by the administration to look for sock puppets. We will not share user information unless required by law to do so." - Lets say a user both posts under their username and under an IP (or multiple IP) and requires banning for vandalism or other disruptive behavior (which happens periodically, it's not a hypothetical) - if we then ask Fyern to confirm via the logs that the IP belongs to a particular username then ban the IP or range referencing the username's actions (which has been in ban reasons in the past), aren't we technichally violating the wording of this? Anyone viewing the ban log would then be able to link the username to the IP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:34, 1 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Sock Puupets should be linked to the glossary. Readem (talk *contribs ) 23:57, 1 May 2007 (CDT)