[HN Gopher] Wikimedia: wprov
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Wikimedia: wprov
        
       Author : tosh
       Score  : 68 points
       Date   : 2021-04-18 13:14 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (wikitech.wikimedia.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (wikitech.wikimedia.org)
        
       | bonoboTP wrote:
       | Context? Explain?
        
         | tinalumfoil wrote:
         | It looks like it serves the same purpose as UTM codes
        
           | sleavey wrote:
           | Should it then be added to block lists in various tracker-
           | removal browser addons?
        
             | brodock wrote:
             | Yes
        
       | akersten wrote:
       | For an encyclopedia that holds itself to high standards of
       | integrity and information sourcing, disguising outbound-to-
       | inbound tracking parameters by camouflaging them as "provenance"
       | is pretty on the nose.
        
         | 0xTJ wrote:
         | Without commenting on any other part, I don't get what you're
         | saying about provenance. They're just using a word correctly.
        
         | donohoe wrote:
         | It's hardly disguising. No one likes verbose URL parameters.
         | 
         | Having a reliable way to know where readers come from (in
         | aggregate) is low-stakes stuff.
        
         | codegladiator wrote:
         | > is pretty on the nose.
         | 
         | why ?
        
         | kikokikokiko wrote:
         | To be fair, Wikimedia is the for profit arm of Wikipedia.
         | Wikipedia itself is still pretty good in terms of user
         | friendliness.
        
           | bawolff wrote:
           | This is incorrect
        
           | morpheuskafka wrote:
           | This is completely backwards. Wikipedia is the name of a
           | project. That project is operated by the Wikimedia
           | Foundation, which is a nonprofit.
        
       | Aissen wrote:
       | Some open source product owners have understood the value of not
       | tracking their users. Others, it seems, still think it's a benign
       | thing to do.
       | 
       | To be more constructive: if you need data, ask your users to
       | enable telemetry (or in this case, provenance parameters). Some
       | will understand what you need, and you'll get a usable sample
       | from those users.
        
         | orf wrote:
         | The problem with this is that nobody will change the defaults,
         | so that approach is utterly useless if you want actionable
         | information.
         | 
         | People label a number of different things, some bad and some
         | good, under the general umbrella of "tracking". I'm not sure
         | that name conveys enough nuance.
         | 
         | Wikipedia wants to evaluate how effective a particular feature
         | is and so they are slightly modifying a URL to do this. It's
         | not tracking you, your family or your dog. It's basically
         | appending "&source=ios".
         | 
         | I'd think that is perfectly fine to any reasonable person.
        
           | kelnos wrote:
           | Maybe I don't want to share a URL like that and tell everyone
           | what OS and app I'm using to browse. I get that a lot of
           | people (yourself included) don't care about that, and I think
           | it _is_ fair to ask what the big deal is, but that 's just
           | how I feel. I can't back that up with data or worries about a
           | threat (though I imagine some people might be able to)... I
           | just don't like it, even if it's one of the most benign forms
           | of tracking.
           | 
           | > _I 'd think that is perfectly fine to any reasonable
           | person._
           | 
           | I reject the assertion that I'm not a reasonable person.
           | Please avoid arguments of this form, as it essentially says
           | "if you don't agree with me, you're an
           | idiot/wrong/defective", which is not productive way to argue
           | your point. (I know I'm guilty of doing this on occasion as
           | well, but I'm trying to get myself to stop.)
        
           | stefan_ wrote:
           | This shit is added without even a thought of what the hell
           | you are trying to evaluate. Insecure middle management types
           | that want to have this noise added should be required to
           | write up a study proposal and register a hypothesis.
           | 
           | Instead its everywhere and for what? What is the actionable
           | information?
        
             | orf wrote:
             | > This shit is added without even a thought of what the
             | hell you are trying to evaluate. Instead its everywhere and
             | for what? What is the actionable information?
             | 
             | They are trying to evaluate the effectiveness of the social
             | sharing features in their various projects. There are any
             | number of reasons to do this - maybe nobody uses these
             | features and they can remove them, or maybe "New Readers
             | video in Hindi distribution on Facebook" has an insane
             | click through rate that might have an impact on the
             | allocation of resources in the future/feed into other
             | products being developed.
             | 
             | You know, stuff you need to do when you run one of the
             | worlds largest websites.
             | 
             | It's also quite clearly spelled out in the linked page, the
             | mailing list thread[1] and the implementation.
             | 
             | If you can think of a better way to get this kind of data
             | that fits more comfortably within your strong personal
             | feelings about the contents of URLs then I'm sure the
             | "insecure middle management type" that proposed it[2] would
             | love to hear your counter-proposal.
             | 
             | 1. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/analytics/2015-Feb
             | ruar...
             | 
             | 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ABaso_(WMF)
        
               | [deleted]
        
         | zackbloom wrote:
         | That's the definition of biased sampling.
        
           | wizzwizz4 wrote:
           | Only if you have reason to suspect that those who opt-in are
           | a skewed sample with respect to the things you want to
           | measure.
        
       | surround wrote:
       | Changes like this are normally discussed and voted on by the
       | community, right? Could someone link to the discussion where this
       | decision was made, so we can better understand it?
        
         | jchw wrote:
         | It was discussed on a mailing list at some point.
         | 
         | https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/analytics/2015-March/0...
        
           | surround wrote:
           | > I'd really rather this be either something that's totally
           | not understandable by the user (e.g. ?saf=1), or something
           | that is clearly understandable (e.g. ?appshareafact=1).
           | 
           | I guess they decided to go with "totally not understandable."
           | 
           | Also - is this mailing list something that anyone can
           | participate in, or only wikimedia office staff?
        
             | yorwba wrote:
             | There's a form for subscribing to the mailing list here:
             | https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | jessriedel wrote:
       | I noticed this being appended to Wikipedia URLs when I share from
       | the Wikipedia mobile app. Apparently it cannot be disabled, which
       | I find very distasteful.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | distances wrote:
         | Yep it's annoying. Always have to go through the clipboard so
         | that I can remove the parameter manually.
        
           | chrisshroba wrote:
           | Just wondering why you're removing it?
        
             | jchw wrote:
             | While techniques like these are undoubtedly handy for
             | analytics, advertising, affiliates, etc. in my opinion they
             | go against the actual purpose of a URL. Removing such
             | suffixes makes my URLs cleaner and defeats the purpose of
             | the tracking mechanism, a practice which hopefully some day
             | will be so commonplace that this kind of tracking is
             | abandoned. (And there are tools that automate it, so it
             | could some day become a tracking blackhole the way adblock
             | is, if such a feature is ever integrated into a popular
             | piece of software.)
        
             | gpvos wrote:
             | Short, clean URLs. I hate all those
             | fbclid&utmz&affiliateid&xyz parameters with a vengeance,
             | often they end up longer than the actually meaningful part
             | of the URL.
        
             | gojomo wrote:
             | I often remove such appendages because I prefer clean,
             | compact, semantic URLs that narrowly reflect _my_ specific
             | intent when sharing an article:  "this article is good".
             | 
             | I don't want any other website/software agendas overlaid
             | into my communication in ways that (1) leak info about what
             | tools I'm using, even seemingly-innocuous info; (2) dilute
             | any salient aspects of the URL by layering on excess (or
             | even worse opaque) tracking info.
             | 
             | I've deleted that damn "?s=21" from the end of Twitter URLs
             | hundreds of times.
        
             | jessriedel wrote:
             | Makes URLs longer and harder to read at a glance, and the
             | reader cannot easily judge how much info they are leaking
             | when they click it.
        
             | mlinksva wrote:
             | I always attempt to remove cruft form links before
             | sharing/publishing/including. Cruft is in bad taste, and
             | sharing it is bad manners. This assertion may well reflect
             | my bad taste, and even bad manners toward people analyzing
             | the provenance of clicks!
             | 
             | Maybe https://docs.clearurls.xyz/ (extension for Firefox
             | and Chromium-based browsers) will strip wprov from URLs at
             | some point
             | https://gitlab.com/KevinRoebert/ClearUrls/-/issues/920
             | 
             | Another thing that ought to be built in for browsers to
             | live up to being agents for users.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-04-18 23:01 UTC)