«But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway»
You replied
«Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations. They will be fine»
You were replied with observations that attempt to explain to you why your comment is out of context, and try to show you the point:
-- normal people, i.e. dignified people, and prudent people, refuse to be tracked in their consumption of information.
-- Wikipedia seems to be aware of the above.
-- Wikipedia seems to be unavailable to enforce «privacy destroying service[s]», there where relevant: consumption of information.
-- Wikipedia also accepts donations, and the process may involve tracking that somebody promotes Wikipedia financially. This is completely different from tracking individuals in their consumption of information, so it is irrelevant in that context. That an entity accepts non-anonymous donations does not imply anything about the approach such entity holds about the treatment of privacy of its users, of the fruition of its specific services.
You seemed to advance that «Wikipedia don't refuse to interface with privacy destroying payment systems required to collect donations» as in «They will be fine [in employing other «privacy destroying service[s]»]»: no, they may not, that is not good reasoning, because one thing is accepting donations, another is revealing which specific services your customers used - for example, whether they read a page about Kennedy or about Oswald.
Spend the required effort when reading posts.
If you authenticate with OAuth, the OAuth server doesn't get to know what particular subresources you visit. It only gets to know which URL initiated the authentication (and whether it tracks even that is an open implementation question).
In other words sure Wikipedia can tell government what pages you visit, but to say that this law does enable that or require that even as a side effect is pure FUD.
So unless you are trolling you would be able to give a rough year or decade when it became an implicit assumption and why exactly, right? ;)
> The point is not with the occasional use of those systems in special cases (e.g. donations), but with systematic use in fruition.
No, the point is "But if Wikimedia is taking broad approach to enforcing their principles, they would refuse to interface with such a privacy destroying service anyway" and frankly your new goalposts are not of much interest to anyone