Well, looks like Wikimedia has done a good thing here, as they've formally notified Phorm that they are opting out of this "service"

Phorm is a "service" being promoted amongst UK ISP's, allowing them to do deep-packet investigations of your web browsing and the like, to serve you targeted advertising.

Wikimedia joins other sites, such as Amazon in opting out of the controversial service (which is legally questionable in the UK, but constantly being pushed)

http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/wiki...g-out-of-phorm/

It's really nothing to crow about. It is the right thing to do, especially from the point of view of people outside the encyclopedia. But how could WP get this wrong? It is an isolated occasion when the interests of this self entitled "community" lines up with the interests of the wider world. In this case Wikipedia's internet libertarianism is on the same side as acting in a responsible manner towards the rest of the world. They will doubtlessly return tomorrow to skull dancing and a new installment of When Encyclopedias Attack.

I disagree GBG that it's not "a big deal".. It's good to see the site acting responsibly in this. Does it hit everything right? Heck no, if i was I wouldn't be an EX-administrator (waiting for the first wag to joke I wouldn't ever had been an admin).

We need to recognize when they do things right, just as much as we need to jump on them when they fuck things up

I thought I just did, along with some analysis as to why and my usual unvarnished view point.

Maybe my attitude-detector is on the fritz, but I got the vibe that "Whoop de fucking do, who gives a fuck".

I'll stop there, so our usual personality conflict doesn't send a thread to the tar pit again

Along with snarkiness about "Internet libertarianism" to the effect that "this time, by chance, it happens to agree with the Right Thing to Do, but it usually doesn't."

Exactly. That's how I say "not wrong this time." Consider that a barnstar if you want.

Just call me —

"Waiting For The Other Shoe To Drop",

Ja Ja

Maybe Wikia is making a rival Phorm?

By Jimbo, I think he's got it!

Ja Ja

Need I point out the irony of Wikimedia's decision to take advantage of their ability to "opt out" of a new privacy-threatening software technology, while people who are extensively profiled in Wikipedia itself are not allowed to do so, etc., etc., etc.?

Sorry, that's just something I tend to do...

It is not even irony, in that at least Phorm does not publicly defame people (and claims there is an opt out mechanism).

The underlying commonality is the presumption of an organisation that they can take decisions on behalf of the masses and know what is good for them and not take ethical responsibility.

Listening to Phorm, their whole storyline is that they are doing us a favour in providing us with useful advertising. News for Phorm, I use AdBlock and fundamentally believe that intrusive, active advertising is immoral, there are plenty of avenues for researching products without this being leached into our every actions. It is not just the argument, but the fundamental abuse of people as moronic consumers that I object to. This I do very much blame on American attitudes - consumerism is so ingrained into the American people as a duty and it is now pervading the world as an unquestioned right thing to do.

In a way, that is the same annoyance with Wikipedia - I want to Google without my searches being polluted with teenage bickering (oops, Wikipedia). I like the principle of an encyclopedic summary being provided, I'd just rather like to know that it was reliable, rather than it being accepted that "Hey, it may be crap, but one day it might be good" attitude.

The Dream of an Audacious Amateur


That's how I feel about my song parodies, too.

So what's "intrusive, active"? Part of the reason those who _don't_ use adblock have to deal with popups, pop-unders, and worse, is because of the arms race with people who block every ad (from way back when someone first had the bright idea of "why not just block _every_ image that's 480x30 pixels from loading" and the reduced returns from those ads as blocking software gets better.

There's a reason that what actually _ships_ with most browsers only blocks popups.

There may also be copyright concerns* with removing inline ads - which are, after all part of the content of the page as served by the content provider. Does this create a derived work?

*I am not a lawyer.

Excellent post, spot on.

Wikipedia's completely blind to its own faults but is extremely quick to point to them in other places.

But if you just remove those parts from the copy of the work you're viewing for your own personal use, rather than redistributing the altered version to others, then it's almost certainly fair use, just like if you take a legally-obtained magazine and cut it apart and rearrange the pieces for your own amusement (not actually republishing the resulting collage).

Gee-whiz, is Greasemonkey illegal? Or how about covering part of your screen with duct tape?*

*I'm not a lawyer either.