Wikidata:Property proposal/opt-out
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
number of clicks to opt-out
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
Not done
| Description | number of clicks needed to opt-out of tracking by website |
|---|---|
| Data type | Quantity |
| Domain | websites |
| Example 1 | reuters.com (Q22343541) → 1 |
| Example 2 | DuckDuckGo (Q12805) → 0 |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
| Planned use | add to some website |
| Expected completeness | eventually complete (Q21873974) |
Motivation
[edit]Seems to be be a common feature of websites, fairly easy to determine, but not standardized. Can be qualify with criteria used (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 08:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Support, an important property for websites.--Arbnos (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment: how is this going to be referentiable, considering this could change over time with site tweaks? Are we going to have to do screen recordings or screenshot sequences as references for particular points in time? --Btcprox (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Help:Source#Web_page would apply. Normally, a link to the website should already be present, so reference URL (P854) isn't that important. retrieved (P813) can still be set. --- Jura 21:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment (former oppose): This seems rather difficult to explicitly quantify (how many clicks from where, exactly), and ambiguous (not being tracked in what manner, by which entities), and better recorded off WikiData and cited by us. JesseW (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- How to quantify it .. it starts when reaching the website, should this be in the description? For the samples, it seems rather straightforward. Also, you can add a reference when inputting or select the reference that suits you when querying. It's clear that more detail can be added with qualifiers if there is interest/need. Maybe you want to share sites or specific references you have in mind? Without the property, I don't quite see how you would add them though. --- Jura 11:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- For the two given examples -- DuckDuckGo I suppose is clear enough (in that the front page makes loud claims that opting out of tracking won't decrease the, already zero, tracking they do); but Reuters front page does not contain any mention of the word "track" (or "opt", or "out", aside from in headlines) that I could find, which seems to suggest more than one click is required to opt out. Also, to the degree that Wikidata should duplicate statements made by others, not original claims, this seems more like an original (if pretty simple) claim. But I have not found the proposer of this property to be very respectful in discussion, so I'll withdraw my opposition and un-watch this page. Please do not tag me in it further. JesseW (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- How to quantify it .. it starts when reaching the website, should this be in the description? For the samples, it seems rather straightforward. Also, you can add a reference when inputting or select the reference that suits you when querying. It's clear that more detail can be added with qualifiers if there is interest/need. Maybe you want to share sites or specific references you have in mind? Without the property, I don't quite see how you would add them though. --- Jura 11:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- are there other points that should be addressed? --- Jura 19:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose as the proposal stands. This is original research in away that is depending on what a user does (even though there is a theoretical minimum, unless it is zero it will be very hard to verify that is actually the minimum). If there were some external standards or review process that were commonly used, then it would perfectly fine though. Ainali (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's not really more complicated than adding language qualifiers to the website statements. Are there cases where you think either of them is complicated? --- Jura 18:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Can you describe the steps one would need to do that would be applicable to any website? Ainali (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- One needs to check the website and note the above values, similar to Wikidata:Property_proposal/accessibility_statement_URL. Is there a problem with either sample? --- Jura 14:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can you describe the steps one would need to do that would be applicable to any website? Ainali (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's not really more complicated than adding language qualifiers to the website statements. Are there cases where you think either of them is complicated? --- Jura 18:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose no, per above. Multichill (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Would websites that don't provide an optout be `novalue`? Arlo Barnes (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Wikidata is not a database that stores facts about the world, but a secondary knowledge base that collects and links to references to such knowledge.–CENNOXX (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose definitely not in scope. start your own website with this info and then we can link to that website's db (or just use QIDs there) BrokenSegue (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose can't imagine this being something worth recording. 1Veertje (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Seems like the proposal needs to be formulated differently. Funny: *Wikidata is not a database that stores facts about the world* haha .. we do tend to loose ourselves with external-id properties. It is metadata about the website in question.
Maybe it's easier to just send the info to the EU agency who is meant to monitor this. --- Jura 14:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC) 
Not done No consensus to create in this form. --99of9 (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)