ANother relevant academic article:
---
"Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and Wikipedia Use"[1]
«This article discusses the results of the first empirical study
providing evidence of regulatory “chilling effects” of Wikipedia users
associated with online government surveillance. The study
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:46:11PM +0100, Alec Muffett wrote:
> Request: whist we're here, I would be delighted to see/plagiarise the
> cipher suites that Wikipedia uses - could you point me at them, please?
Cipher suites can be found here:
On 16 June 2017 at 19:12, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> hi Alec,
Hi Faidon!
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 04:12:49PM +0100, Alec Muffett wrote:
> > I'd love to know more about the security issues in particular. Do please
> > tell?
>
> I don't recall finding a specific
Hi,
On 19/06/2017 13:35, Tim Starling wrote:
> The only other argument I saw was that by doing this, we are
> supporting Tor, and Tor is evil. But the hidden service only handles
> traffic which is directed to the service. It does not support the
> network in general. Meanwhile, since 2014 we are
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>
> I think we should shut down the relay, which in my opinion is not
> mission-aligned, and set up the hidden service, which clearly is
> mission-aligned.
>
In some countries, sharing information with others (even
Tim,
I'm taking your response as a rather lengthy way of saying that there is no
convenient central location for discussions of the sort that ought to be
taking place around this and other projects. Is that correct?
"Rogol"
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Tim Starling
:10
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's set up a Tor onion service for Wikipedia
On 13/06/17 20:28, Gergő Tisza wrote:
> Now that we have ascertained (again) that wikimedia-l is a poor channel
> for focused discussions about tech proposals, can w
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:35:10PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
> I think we should shut down the relay, which in my opinion is not
> mission-aligned, and set up the hidden service, which clearly is
> mission-aligned.
If Tor users are valueable to us enough to justify maintaining (small
pieces of)
On 19/06/17 16:20, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> I quite agree that Phabricator is not suitable for these discussions.
> Perhaps Tim would like to say where and how discussions between the
> Community and Foundation staff about the need for, and desirability of,
> projects like this should be held.
I quite agree that Phabricator is not suitable for these discussions.
Perhaps Tim would like to say where and how discussions between the
Community and Foundation staff about the need for, and desirability of,
projects like this should be held. After all, we all want projects to go
ahead on the
On 13/06/17 20:28, Gergő Tisza wrote:
> Now that we have ascertained (again) that wikimedia-l is a poor channel
> for focused discussions about tech proposals, can we move this to
> Phabricator?
I filed https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T168218
On 14/06/17 12:12, Risker wrote:
> I see your
Hi Faidon,
On 16/06/2017 20:12, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
>> I would love to know more about what you see as the inhibitors - especially
>> so that I can go fix them for the internet-community-at-large - however
>> this decision is one for the Wikipedia community to take.
>>
>> I'll still happily
hi Alec,
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 04:12:49PM +0100, Alec Muffett wrote:
> I'd love to know more about the security issues in particular. Do please
> tell?
I don't recall finding a specific vulnerability, but last time I had a
look at EOTK a while ago, it generated an nginx config that performed
On 14 June 2017 at 16:08, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
wrote:
> That part reminds me a bit of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T156847,
> which is about outputting different addresses in links for the mobile site
> versus the desktop site. The same solution might work for both
On 14 June 2017 at 15:57, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> The EOTK stuff are interesting but not really an option for us -- they
> rely on a edge (nginx) server performing content manipulation blindly,
> which is a bad idea for many reasons, security amongst them.
>
Hi again
Hi Faidon,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this thread.
On 14/06/2017 16:57, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> [ I didn't see this email from Alec on the thread, was it off-list? ]
[no, it's on the list and in the archive [1] ]
> I've been in touch with Alec and other Tor project members
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Risker wrote:
> I have yet to see any indication in numerous discussions about Tor that I
> have read and/or participated in that our technical geniuses (and I say
> that with warmth and honesty) really give a lot of thought to the legal and
hi Faidon,
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Faidon Liambotis
wrote:
>
>
> However, it hasn't been a priority for me or my team for these reasons:
> - As long as communities feel so-and-so about Tor overall, and e.g.
> block edits from Tor users, it's hard to justify us
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Faidon Liambotis
wrote:
> Just to mention a couple of issues: one of them is that we need MediaWiki
> to emit different URLs for e.g. upload.wikimedia.org resources to point
> to the onion address that we will designate for media.
That
Hi Cristian,
[ I didn't see this email from Alec on the thread, was it off-list? ]
I've been in touch with Alec and other Tor project members on emails,
in-person Tor project meetings and videoconferences on multiple
occasions in the past couple of years (the last one being a couple of
months
Hi,
On 14/06/2017 04:12, Risker wrote:
> [...] Setting this up is not a
> technical "problem" to be solved (which is essentially what Phabricator is
> for). I will again reinforce: it's a social and ethical issue, and only
> once that is resolved would it be time to consider it a "technical
>
On 07/06/2017 20:24, Alec Muffett wrote:
> If it helps, I built an betatest onion for Wikipedia and all(?) the
> Wikimedia Foundation websites using EOTK* a few months ago, and documented
> the build process at:
>
> https://github.com/alecmuffett/eotk/blob/master/docs.d/RUNBOOK.md
>
> A basic
I see your point, Gergo, but in reality Phabricator is an even worse
channel to discuss projects that are, essentially, social issues. Whether
or not to have an onion may appear to be essentially a technical issue, but
I have yet to see any indication in numerous discussions about Tor that I
have
This conversation has gone in multiple directions. It started with reading
Wikipedia through a hidden service. I am interested only in talking about
editing Wikipedia with Tor.
I feel that the negativity in this thread against Tor is unwarranted and
ignorant. I can confirm that Wikipedia needs
Blocking a registered user on TOR is not different from blocking a
registered user outside TOR.
5. jun. 2017 21.02 skrev "John" :
> Im not going to violate BEANS, but even allowing accounts to edit without
> further hurdles isn't going to work. Because of the anonymity
Now that we have ascertained (again) that wikimedia-l is a poor channel
for focused discussions about tech proposals, can we move this to
Phabricator?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Yongmin H. wrote:
> FYI: Editing through tor is blocked for logged in users too, unless you
> have `ipblock-exempt`. (It's included in admins and IP Block Exemptions.)
it is NOW, it does not have to be - through an app.
cheers,
dj
06.06.2017, 01:11, "Risker" :
> As far as I can tell (and from comments made in the past by actual Tor
> users), there is no problem whatsoever for Tor users to read Wikipedia
> while using Tor. Editing is a completely different situation - and well it
> should be, given the
FYI: Editing through tor is blocked for logged in users too, unless you
have `ipblock-exempt`. (It's included in admins and IP Block Exemptions.)
On 2017-06-13 18:26, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Trillium Corsage
> wrote:
>
>> 06.06.2017,
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Trillium Corsage
wrote:
> 06.06.2017, 01:11, "Risker" :
> > As far as I can tell (and from comments made in the past by actual Tor
> > users), there is no problem whatsoever for Tor users to read Wikipedia
> > while
David Gerard, you and "John" go on about how horrible the English Wikipedia
edits from Tor are. Can you give a couple examples (and quote them) just so we
have a little basis to believe that no Tor editor was ever good, and refute the
notion that the blocking of Tor IPs that haven't done
If it helps, I built an betatest onion for Wikipedia and all(?) the
Wikimedia Foundation websites using EOTK* a few months ago, and documented
the build process at:
https://github.com/alecmuffett/eotk/blob/master/docs.d/RUNBOOK.md
A basic test onion takes about 5..10 minutes to set up on Ubuntu
On 10/06/17 15:38, David Gerard wrote:
> Rather than me reading through several pages to pick out what you might
> mean, could you please quote the bits you consider particularly make a
> relevant point?
>
>
> - d.
Well, here is the abstract.
Gordon
*
Apposite, but defective in a number of respects; also, explicitly advocacy
for Tor editing without really addressing the objections to it (that it's
99+% a firehose of garbage).
Rather than me reading through several pages to pick out what you might
mean, could you please quote the bits you
Hi,
I have found now this paper that seems relevant to this conversation:
Forte, Andrea, Nazanin Andalibi, and Rachel Greenstadt
"Privacy, anonymity, and perceived risk in open collaboration: a study
of Tor users and Wikipedians."
Proceedings of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social
Quick update,
as this story went on Motherboard
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wikipedians-want-to-to-put-wikipedia-on-the-dark-web
;-)
Aubrey
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Cristian Consonni
wrote:
> On 06/06/2017 02:10, Risker wrote:
> > As far as I can
On 06/06/2017 02:10, Risker wrote:
> As far as I can tell (and from comments made in the past by actual Tor
> users), there is no problem whatsoever for Tor users to read Wikipedia
> while using Tor.
Let me put it this way, I am sure that the WMF will always do its best
to protect the privacy of
On 06/06/2017 01:34, MZMcBride wrote:
> And Faidon posted in November 2014 about the establishment of a Tor relay:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2014-November/079392.html
Thanks for the pointer, I did know that the WMF was operating a Tor
relay but I didn't recall where to
By the way a certain degree of accountability is needed.
There cannot be any privacy for "wikingers" or people bringing cyberbulling
to wiki.
Vito
2017-06-06 2:10 GMT+02:00 Risker :
> As far as I can tell (and from comments made in the past by actual Tor
> users), there is
As far as I can tell (and from comments made in the past by actual Tor
users), there is no problem whatsoever for Tor users to read Wikipedia
while using Tor. Editing is a completely different situation - and well it
should be, given the pure unadulterated trash that tends to come in
whenever a
Cristian Consonni wrote:
>I have read several discussions on the topic (going back to 2006) and
>what I have understood from those is that the biggest issue with editing
>via Tor is sockpuppeting.
This Phabricator comment you found seems pretty useful:
On 05/06/2017 22:19, Todd Allen wrote:
> With the recent ruling about ISPs being allowed to collect and sell user
> data in the US, we're at "highly exceptional circumstances". Good Internet
> citizens allow anonymous participation. We can soft block them, but surely
> we can revert vandals and
I agree that sockpuppets are a real problem, but they manage fine right now
without going through Tor. There are quite a few ways to connect up using
different IPs as it is now, so the real problem remains: the sockpuppeteers
themselves.
Gabe
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Cristian Consonni
On 05/06/2017 19:43, David Gerard wrote:
> Editing may be a tricky one, particularly on en:wp, which has found
> Tor exit points to overwhelmingly be fountains of garbage, and
> automatically blocks them.
On 05/06/2017 19:47, John wrote:
> enabling read access via Tor shouldn't be an issue,
With the recent ruling about ISPs being allowed to collect and sell user
data in the US, we're at "highly exceptional circumstances". Good Internet
citizens allow anonymous participation. We can soft block them, but surely
we can revert vandals and block their accounts.
If we can't even manage
Nope.
Tor users needs `ip block exempt` or `global ip block exempt` to edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption seem to say so too.
("In highly exceptional circumstances, an editor may be permitted to edit
anonymously, via Tor or another anonymizing proxy.")
--
Yongmin
Im not going to violate BEANS, but even allowing accounts to edit without
further hurdles isn't going to work. Because of the anonymity that tor
provides its fairly easy to cause widespread issues. When the vandals start
actually using tactics the flood gates of TOR will cause massive issues
cross
Im not going to violate BEANS, but even allowing accounts to edit without
further hurdles isn't going to work. Because of the anonymity that tor
provides its fairly easy to cause widespread issues. When the vandals start
actually using tactics the flood gates of TOR will cause massive issues
cross
I imagine registered users could edit through TOR. That is how it works
with my school IP: anonymous edits are blocked, account creation as well,
but you can sign in an edit.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:47 PM, John wrote:
> enabling read access via Tor shouldn't be an
enabling read access via Tor shouldn't be an issue, however editing should
not be allowed due to high volume of known abuse from that vector.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:43 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Editing may be a tricky one, particularly on en:wp, which has found
> Tor exit
Editing may be a tricky one, particularly on en:wp, which has found
Tor exit points to overwhelmingly be fountains of garbage, and
automatically blocks them.
- d.
On 5 June 2017 at 18:30, David Cuenca Tudela wrote:
> I think that's an excellent idea and very much aligned
I think that's an excellent idea and very much aligned with our commitment
to provide free information also for those who are living under unfavorable
conditions.
I personally endorse it.
Thanks Cristian for suggesting it.
Regards,
Micru
On Jun 5, 2017 19:11, "Cristian Consonni"
Hi,
I have written a proposal about setting up an onion (hidden) service to
serve Wikipedia over Tor:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/A_Tor_Onion_Service_for_Wikipedia
I was thinking about this and I also discovered that the Internet
Archive is experimenting with a very similar
53 matches
Mail list logo