User talk:Guy Macon/Wikimedia referrer policy

This is that talk page for User:Guy Macon/Reforms/Referrer. As a page in my own userspace, I am allowed to delete or collapse any comments that I do not find helpful. If you want a place to comment without such restrictions, you are free to do so on your own talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy RfC

Meanwhile, the whole majority favors the "no referrer info" policy. Well, four opposed, but others favored other options, like either full URL or just full domain. Further discussion turned into privacy vs. traffic stats and so forth. True, IP users don't have preferences because... they can't. However, even when the majority supported the "no referrer" policy, including one IP user, I wasn't sure whether those favoring silent referrer also favored having an IP user sending no info under proposed policy. We'll discuss IP users in another section at later time. --George Ho (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For an update, Guy Macon, the discussion is summarized by one closer, which I totally accept. --George Ho (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that it was a good close. In particular, it repeats the point about it being non-binding, which i really wanted to be in the close, on the theory that the closing comments are all that some peopl read. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referrer control extensions for browsers

I found third-party add-ons controlling what information to send to external websites, but they are for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome. I found out that Internet Explorer doesn't disable sending referrer info for HTTP sites but for HTTPS sites. Unsure about Microsoft Edge. I could not find one referrer control extension made by either Google or Mozilla itself, i.e. first-party companies. --George Ho (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at length in the RfC, add-ons do not address the two main issues that the RfC addressed, which are protecting the privacy of all users, including those who lack the skill to set up an add-on, and discouraging spammers. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an answer. Now what?

Please discuss further strategies here. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the prevalence of web traffic interception

Here is an interesting article:

https://blog.cloudflare.com/understanding-the-prevalence-of-web-traffic-interception/

Close to foregoing the idea

I thought I fully understood referrer info issue, but I guess I don't know. The MS Internet Browser doesn't support referrer policy, which I (re-)realized. Also, one said that the RfC discussion had a lot of disinformation and stuff. I tried proposing it at this year's Wishlist Survey, but it got archived as "inappropriate" for the Wishlist before the Wishlist began. Meanwhile, a WMF staff gave out the code (seen in the page) to those who want to use browsers supporting referrer info. I copied the whole code into the "global.js" page at Meta-wiki. It works for current versions of browsers, especially Google Chrome. Why Meta-wiki? I do contributions also at other projects, which also contain external links to other websites. Also, I figured it's more efficient than simply copying the whole code to a single user subpage at every project.

I tried referrer control add-ons/extensions for Google Chrome. While they work, other websites can still retrieve referrer info. Well, that's according to my browsers' developer tools. Therefore, I found those add-ons useless (well, to me). There's one in Japanese language, which is hard to understand.

Also, a Phabricator task to fix referrer policy issues regarding MS Edge and Apple Safari was created.

For now, raising an issue again at another Wishlist is too risky, so I'll not re-propose an idea related to this issue there. I don't know whether it's worth raising the issue again at en.WP or meta-Wiki, considering how controversial it is. Suggestions? George Ho (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest as a starting point another non-binding advisory RfC modeled after the one I posted, but this time asking the WMF to implement the silent referrer and make it a selectable option for anyone who uses the Media Wiki software. Just because the WMF wants to reveal which pages the readers of Wikipedia visit to other websites, that doesn't mean that all of the other Wikis that are not under the WMF should be forced to do so. Would you be willing to post such an RfC? If so would it be OK if I could comment on a draft version before you post it? The final decision would be yours, but I might have some suggestions that you like. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and post a draft or something. However, it should be more organized and more informative about referrer policy and referrer info. Also, IE users should be informed that all versions of MS IE don't support referrer policy. Also, it should also include info about browsers supporting referrer policy. I don't feel like posting an RfC about this at the moment, and I don't intend to (unless I'm ready). I think you're a better presenter than I. ;) --George Ho (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need to present an RFC for an option for other sites (as being irrelevant to English Wikipedia/any Wikimedia wiki), unless you plan to attempt to backdoor the change onto Wikimedia platforms. (That's just a community time waste.) Just put a ticket in Phabricator about it and go from there. You will, however, be asked for instances of real website owners who would like that change, else the ticket will likely languish. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that phabricator tickets are an effective way to make proposals that will result in a yes or no decision from WMF management. For example. On February 3 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPCHA system discriminates against blind people. See [ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6845 ] It is now nearly 2018 and we have yet to see WMF management either commit to obeying the law or clearly state that they refuse to obat the law and why. Feel free to prove me wrong by submitting a phabricator ticket asking the WMF to implement the silent referrer and make it a selectable option for anyone who uses the Media Wiki software and telling me when it gets implemented or a decision was made not to implement it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Izno's right; RFC may be unnecessary, especially if some people don't want to be notified by a bot about certain discussions. However, I think you are also right, Guy Macon, about Phab tickets. Well, a couple of my tasks are declined. So were some of others' tasks. Also, this task is considered a "lowest" priority, despite community consensus. I was also told by a WMF staff that filing a Phab task is not the best way to go forward for more complex issues. Rather than an RFC or a Phab task, if the issue can be raised again, how about WP:VPIL or WP:VPPR for another community discussion without using the RFC tag? George Ho (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try again: Your discussion will be seen as disruptive, because no-one at English Wikipedia will care what other websites do or need. An RFC, or any community discussion here at English Wikipedia, will be seen as a time waste and you will be asked to move along to some place (and possibly something) else. If you have sincere reasons for this addition to the MediaWiki software (as in, you are someone, or you know someone, who could use the functionality on a non-WMF wiki), this wiki is not the place to have that discussion. You can try Meta or you can try Mediawikiwiki, or as I suggested, you can try Phabricator. --Izno (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]