This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The first half of this is written like an advert, just repeating selling points from google's press release. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion 86.13.192.2 ( talk) 22:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Proposed standard is a special term in context of internet/web technologies and it is defined by IETF. It describes APIs/datagrams/etc. which are considered stable and are typically broadly deployed by the time they receive this characterization. WEI is definitely not a proposed standard, it is not even developed within W3C or IETF, it is one developer's individual GitHub repository. Although Google Chrome is close to shipping an initial version of this specification, this does not mean WEI ever advance beyond an experimental stage. Anton.bersh ( talk) 16:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
It looks like this proposal has been abandoned, I think. Can somebody who knows the context take a look at this page to see if it needs updating or whatever? I'm feeling far too ill-informed to risk an update myself, sorry! https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity Denny de la Haye ( talk) 22:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
3O Response: Dennymeta fixed their sig using the current timestamp. Given that there were no intermediate edits this is fine, it is not necessary to "fix" further and certainly should not be modified by anyone other than Dennymeta without a more compelling justification. Polyamorph ( talk) 08:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Polyamorph ( talk) 08:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:WHENTABLE says: "If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.". I think this table should be converted to prose, for better accessibility. The exact dates of the opposing arguments are not really valuable IMHO, just the content of the critique and who said it should be enough. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 12:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@ DefaultFree "Open Web" refers specifically to the web standards that make up the web. Thinking "open" as a lowercase adjective doesn't really make sense. A lot of sources online use "Open Web" such as W3C and some use "open web" like Drupal's founder. None use "open Web". Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
If the reason for using that variant is to avoid unnecessary capitalization then we should use the all lowercase version instead. The WMF also uses it (it's also their name for the tag on the "Diff" blog) and there are a lot more mentions of it online than "open Web". For example you can see that in Google ngram. Aaron Liu ( talk) 01:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that was a pretty elegant and nice solution. Aaron Liu ( talk) 22:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@ DefaultFree I agree that the Mozilla phrasing might be very confusing, but I do want to make clear that the principle Mozilla's talking about is that everyone can use the Web. For the restricting browsers part all three sources say that. Vivaldi says that in the section "So, what is the issue?". EFF says that in the section "WEI helps websites block disfavored browsers". FSF says that throughout the entire article including "It will be used by governments to ensure that only their officially "approved" (read: backdoored) browsers are able to access the Internet; it will be used by corporations like Netflix to further Digital Restrictions Management (DRM); it will be used by Google to deny access to their services unless you are using a browser that gels with their profit margin." I agree with the W3C change. Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
claimed it would significantly limit the browsers that could be used, not every source makes that precise claim. Vivaldi says "there is no guarantee". EFF claims that the limiting would be unsuccessful because the "small percentage" of holdback clients would render WEI unusable by websites. Perhaps you could use individualized quotes from each source to describe the specific claim that the specific source is making. DefaultFree ( talk) 17:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
...Mozilla opposed it, stating "Any browser, server, or publisher that implements common standards is automatically part of the Web."
"Any browser, server, or publisher that implements common standards is automatically part of the Web"has to do with WEI or the WEI proposal. The current text makes a statement about WEI in relation to the Web; this proposed text just makes a statement about the Web, with no explicit connection to WEI. DefaultFree ( talk) 01:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
... Mozilla opposed it, stating "Any browser, server, or publisher that implements common standards is automatically part of the Web... Mechanisms that attempt to restrict these choices are harmful to the openness of the Web ecosystem and are not good for users."
... Vivaldi opposed it as "simply dangerous" and feared that attestation providers would not be trustworthy.
...the Free Software Foundation opposed it as "an all-out attack on the free Internet" and claimed it would significantly limit the browsers that could be used.
...the Electronic Frontier Foundation opposed it as "a bad idea that Google should not pursue" and rejected its proposal of selecting a "small percentage" of random users to simulate behavior without WEI in order to prevent websites from using it as a whitelist. The EFF claimed that "[m]any websites will consider that “small percentage” of users an acceptable price to pay" and feared Google would set the percentage extremely low to attest more human ad clicks.
...in order to prevent websites from blocking unattested users?
benefit Google’s ad fraud department by authenticating more ad clicks. Ad fraud is tricking ad services into thinking there are more valid (human) clicks than there actually are. The WEI explainer also emphasizing attesting humans a lot:
This trust may assume that the client environment ... is transparent about whether or not a human is using itis in the first paragraph and the first example is attesting human ad clicks. I don't see what else "authenticating" ad clicks can mean.
On August 1, Brave Software announced they will not include WEI in their web browser.The quotes before and after the edit have the same meaning in that context. If you're talking about the Mozilla quote, that's because the quote has additional meaning (on which principles) that I can't paraphrase well. OQ:
A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved.Aaron Liu ( talk) 15:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The first half of this is written like an advert, just repeating selling points from google's press release. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion 86.13.192.2 ( talk) 22:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Proposed standard is a special term in context of internet/web technologies and it is defined by IETF. It describes APIs/datagrams/etc. which are considered stable and are typically broadly deployed by the time they receive this characterization. WEI is definitely not a proposed standard, it is not even developed within W3C or IETF, it is one developer's individual GitHub repository. Although Google Chrome is close to shipping an initial version of this specification, this does not mean WEI ever advance beyond an experimental stage. Anton.bersh ( talk) 16:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
It looks like this proposal has been abandoned, I think. Can somebody who knows the context take a look at this page to see if it needs updating or whatever? I'm feeling far too ill-informed to risk an update myself, sorry! https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity Denny de la Haye ( talk) 22:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
3O Response: Dennymeta fixed their sig using the current timestamp. Given that there were no intermediate edits this is fine, it is not necessary to "fix" further and certainly should not be modified by anyone other than Dennymeta without a more compelling justification. Polyamorph ( talk) 08:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Polyamorph ( talk) 08:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:WHENTABLE says: "If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.". I think this table should be converted to prose, for better accessibility. The exact dates of the opposing arguments are not really valuable IMHO, just the content of the critique and who said it should be enough. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 12:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@ DefaultFree "Open Web" refers specifically to the web standards that make up the web. Thinking "open" as a lowercase adjective doesn't really make sense. A lot of sources online use "Open Web" such as W3C and some use "open web" like Drupal's founder. None use "open Web". Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
If the reason for using that variant is to avoid unnecessary capitalization then we should use the all lowercase version instead. The WMF also uses it (it's also their name for the tag on the "Diff" blog) and there are a lot more mentions of it online than "open Web". For example you can see that in Google ngram. Aaron Liu ( talk) 01:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that was a pretty elegant and nice solution. Aaron Liu ( talk) 22:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@ DefaultFree I agree that the Mozilla phrasing might be very confusing, but I do want to make clear that the principle Mozilla's talking about is that everyone can use the Web. For the restricting browsers part all three sources say that. Vivaldi says that in the section "So, what is the issue?". EFF says that in the section "WEI helps websites block disfavored browsers". FSF says that throughout the entire article including "It will be used by governments to ensure that only their officially "approved" (read: backdoored) browsers are able to access the Internet; it will be used by corporations like Netflix to further Digital Restrictions Management (DRM); it will be used by Google to deny access to their services unless you are using a browser that gels with their profit margin." I agree with the W3C change. Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
claimed it would significantly limit the browsers that could be used, not every source makes that precise claim. Vivaldi says "there is no guarantee". EFF claims that the limiting would be unsuccessful because the "small percentage" of holdback clients would render WEI unusable by websites. Perhaps you could use individualized quotes from each source to describe the specific claim that the specific source is making. DefaultFree ( talk) 17:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
...Mozilla opposed it, stating "Any browser, server, or publisher that implements common standards is automatically part of the Web."
"Any browser, server, or publisher that implements common standards is automatically part of the Web"has to do with WEI or the WEI proposal. The current text makes a statement about WEI in relation to the Web; this proposed text just makes a statement about the Web, with no explicit connection to WEI. DefaultFree ( talk) 01:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
... Mozilla opposed it, stating "Any browser, server, or publisher that implements common standards is automatically part of the Web... Mechanisms that attempt to restrict these choices are harmful to the openness of the Web ecosystem and are not good for users."
... Vivaldi opposed it as "simply dangerous" and feared that attestation providers would not be trustworthy.
...the Free Software Foundation opposed it as "an all-out attack on the free Internet" and claimed it would significantly limit the browsers that could be used.
...the Electronic Frontier Foundation opposed it as "a bad idea that Google should not pursue" and rejected its proposal of selecting a "small percentage" of random users to simulate behavior without WEI in order to prevent websites from using it as a whitelist. The EFF claimed that "[m]any websites will consider that “small percentage” of users an acceptable price to pay" and feared Google would set the percentage extremely low to attest more human ad clicks.
...in order to prevent websites from blocking unattested users?
benefit Google’s ad fraud department by authenticating more ad clicks. Ad fraud is tricking ad services into thinking there are more valid (human) clicks than there actually are. The WEI explainer also emphasizing attesting humans a lot:
This trust may assume that the client environment ... is transparent about whether or not a human is using itis in the first paragraph and the first example is attesting human ad clicks. I don't see what else "authenticating" ad clicks can mean.
On August 1, Brave Software announced they will not include WEI in their web browser.The quotes before and after the edit have the same meaning in that context. If you're talking about the Mozilla quote, that's because the quote has additional meaning (on which principles) that I can't paraphrase well. OQ:
A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved.Aaron Liu ( talk) 15:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)