Talk:IRC/Channels/Archives/2006

Question: log

If there are logs, who can read them and where are they? --81.214.234.199 12:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't logged in... (--katpatuka 12:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

That's entirely dependent on the individual channel. Try asking in the channels in question. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 18:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Logging

Can someone justify the prohibition against logging, using concrete real-world examples where it would do harm to people who do not merit harm done to them? Hipocrite 13:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Public logging inhibits discussion, is often used against the speaker by quoting out of context, has been used to mock organisations or persons (see the Wikitruth affair), is illegal in some jurisdictions, constitutes distribution of many persons' conversations without their permission, and is traditionally frowned upon on IRC. Note that logging is not prohibited, publishing them is. Individual channels are free to allow public logging if they so wish, and in those cases the prohibition you speak of obviously doesn't apply. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 16:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Public logging does not inhibit discussion any more so than the mere presense of whoever you are afraid might see the logs, and since we dont keep those people out then prohibiting logging does not achieve this goal. Ditto quoting out of context. Can you name specific jurisdictions where such would be illegal? The entire framework of IRC allows for arbitrary delays in message propagation, and at the most contrived level an irc log is just an extremely delayed read-only irc relay. When you say something in an IRC channel, the nature of IRC dictates that that message can/will be delivered to an arbitrary group of people completely outside your control. On principle, I may end up exercising some civil disobedience with regards to this rule. I have no plans to specifically publish logs of #wiki*, but I log everything on IRC, and on occasion in the past I have volunteered or been asked to supply comprehensive logs to historical archive projects of various sorts (having a few GB of logs of serious, non chit-chat channels, there is a significant amount of useful information to be found within). If such should happen again, I would find myself hard pressed to censor #wiki* from my logs. If punishment resulted, it would be worth it. Sparr 03:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The restriction against logging is also unenforceable. Someone can post the logs anonymously on the internet. Tisane 19:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Public logging prohibition should be lifted

I've been thinking about this logging issue a lot, and I'm not sure we're getting it right. The idea that public loggin of an IRC channel should be prohibited is not very sound. In fact, I think we should publish logs of all generally accessable channels (ie. non-invite) ourselves.

Let me explain why I think arguments for the prohibition are wrong IMO.

• Public logging inhibits discussion - for public logging to have any influence on the discussion in IRC channels, one has to assume that without public logging, talking in front of hundreds of people (i.e. willingly causing your computer to transfer your messages to hundreds of other people's computers, not to mention the servers in between) is somehow private and redistributing the discussion constitutes a breach of privacy. If I used any other publically available media (i.e. one which doesn't require subscription or personal identification) to do that and claimed privacy, I'd be laughed at.
• is often used against the speaker by quoting out of context - for quoting out of context to be effective, the context has to be unavailable. Quoting people out of context when public log of the conversation is available is easily disprovable. In fact, the absence of a public log allows not only quoting out of context, but also misquoting and outright forgery of statements, both of which would be impossible with a publically available log.
• is illegal in some jurisdictions - and legal in others. Also, an advance warning that the channel is logged would probably clear any concerns with legality.

There are also problems with the prohibition, which IMO make it unenforcable and even harmful.

• There is no practical way to prevent people who want to publish IRC logs to do so. There are hundreds of users in some of our channels, and there is no way for us to personally identify them or make sure that they're not "double agents". Limiting the access to vetted users only would inhibit the discussion much more than public logging.
• Prohibition of public logging encourages the naive view that conversation on a generally accessable IRC channel is private. This can be potentially unpleasant or even dangerous for people who expect privacy and are thus not careful with the personal information or opinions they disclose. "Inhibiting discussion" is a good thing in this case.
• Making hollow threats (saying "you'll be banned from all Wikimedia channels" when we have no way of actually banning a determined person) makes us look patronizing and silly, which makes us a perfect target for people who like to "stick it to the man".
• The prohibition feeds the interest for the logs - if they don't want them public, they must have something to hide. Combined with the fact that we can't assure 100% security, and the fact that we are all just people, so we inevitable talk about the loggers in the channel, this becomes a vicious circle. We find a way to beat loggers back, which makes them more excited and interested in the logs, so they find a new way to do it anyway, and we try to beat them again. All the while expending time and energy on something that can't be done, and turning clueless disgruntled people into experienced sworn enemies.
• In addition to the interest, the prohibition also provides the satisfaction when it's beaten, reinforcing the vicious circle.

So, should we get rid of the prohibition or am I overlooking something? Zocky 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You make a compelling argument. I agree that the "prohibition" should be lifted, but it won't have any effect on how people behave even if it remains (unenforceability is a strong argument). Logs can be posted anonymously, IRC is a public means of communication, etc. etc. Still I don't think things are going to change just because you are being sensible. 66.146.62.49 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this idiotic anti-logging prohibiton after the lastest IRC atrocity was committed on en.wp. Hipocrite 13:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think simply removing the text from this page is going to change anything. John Reaves (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this public logging thing is out of our hands. Many states in the US have laws that say that one must get permission from everyone present in the chat to publicly log. V60 ^{VMTalk · VMake} 20:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But is that relevant? The issue here is that public logging is forbidden by policy and could get you banned on the channel. Unless this is dictated by US law which I doubt, then the law here is irrelevant. If you make logs public in violation of US law, then perhaps you could be prosecuted. Maybe even if you don't live in the US. But that's for the person who publicly logs to consider & doesn't require that we ban people who publicly log Nil Einne 23:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't permission be implied, if the IRC channel states that by communicating via the channel, you consent to logging? Tisane 19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Single Quotes made Public

To be clear, is public quotation of individuals in IRC permissible? What if the N.Y. Times (or WikiTruth) logged in fishing for good quotes? Is IRC public record? Thanks, GChriss 00:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)