Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Affiliates consultation/Report

references

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1gtkKY5smAN6aw_O2vM-VqeJ_hLxe-1qYO74gSXC34Fk/edit?usp=sharing&skip_itp2_check=true&pli=1 is listed as a reference for Collective feedback from the “Art+Feminism User Group”, but it is locked, and attempts to view it as a logged in Google user result in a access denied error. A similar document for the Wikimedia UK” chapter is accessible, even to IPs. Why do we reference inaccessible sources? Vexations (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The reference was added by Mervat (WMF) in https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Affiliates_consultation/Report&diff=next&oldid=21480177 Mervat, can you explain why we accept closed reports? Vexations (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, thank you for your comment. Changed the link of the first report, it's accessible now. --Mervat (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

GDPR

“Affiliates in Europe need to comply with the regulations of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), especially when it relates to revealing personal information. However an affiliate clarified that GDPR is only for databases. There is a need to consider if this will contradict the UCoC.” Well, maybe the affiliate expressed their opinion that GDPR is only for databases. As far as I know, this is wrong. And the wording here could be read that WMF got convinced by that affiliate that GDPR does not affect the UCoC in these countries (while it in fact very likely does, but ianal). I'm sure that experts on European data protection law might give better feedback than some affiliate. Can you clarify what the affiliate meant and how WMF interpretes that? Thanks in advance, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@DerHexer: Hi, I just want to let you know that we take notice of the comment and will post the answer soon. Thanks! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)