Matthew Finkel: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 09:57:06PM +0000, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: >> Matthew Finkel: >>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 09:01:21AM +0000, Matt Pagan wrote: >>>>> They're based in San Francisco, along with Craigslist (which >>>>> is another misguided arbitrary blocker of Tor exits). >>>>> Any other SF based companies that could benefit from >>>>> a visit or hackerspace talk about why they should not >>>>> be blocking Tor? >>>> >>>> Yelp is based in San Francisco. So is Pinterest. Getting the Wikimedia >>>> Foundation (also based in San Francisco) to come over would be a huge >>>> victory, IMO. >>>> >>> >>> Wikimedia is actually willing to discuss an alternative setup if a >>> usable one is found. Their current implementation is not really >>> acceptable, but there also isn't really a working/implemented alternative >>> solution, at this point (and it's not exactly at the top of their list >>> to implement their own). >> >> I was involved in writing the DNSBulkExitList program specifically for >> Wikipedia at the request of Tim S. At the time, I believe that it was >> better than simply blocking every Tor node - it only blocks exit nodes >> that allow exiting to Wikipedia. >> > > Interesting, I assume this was before Onionoo was around. I understand > why it was/is necessary.
Isn't it still being used? > >> It is possible to request a special flag on a Wikipedia account that is >> granted by way of some special handshake. It is possible to take an >> already created account and use it for edits as the flag overrides the >> Tor block. >> > > Yes, and it's a good solution, assuming one already has an account. The > real issue is creating an account anonymously and then gaining the > privilege to edit with that account...and... Right - that and the general class system that it promotes - "hey, you know someone, cool, you can have anonymity" - whoops. Talk about liability? One wonders... > >> A workable solution would be to continue to use such a list to detect >> Tor usage and then to ensure that we now allow new accounts to be >> created over Tor. The MediaWiki should ensure that HSTS is sent to the >> user and that the user only ever uses HTTPS to connect to Wikipedia. >> > > Yes, I completely agree. How do we make this happen? > >> I think we should ensure that Wikipedia understands that the account was >> created with Tor and that the user may be using this to circumvent >> censorship, to protect what they are reading or editing from their local >> network censors or surveillance regime as well as to protect IP address >> information that the US currently doesn't really protect (see USA vs. >> Appelbaum; re: my Twitter case). Since the US can see a lot of the >> traffic to Wikipedia, I'd guess that this is important worldwide. >> > > Again, I agree. Is there a general disagreement about these points in the Wikipedia community? > >> If the user is abusive and an IP block would normally apply, Wikipedia >> would not block by IP but would rather use the normal Wikipedia process >> to resolve disputes (in edits, discussions, etc) and if the account is >> just being used for automated jerk behavior, I think it would be >> reasonable to lock the account, perhaps even forcing the user to solve a >> captcha, or whatever other process is used when accounts are abused in >> an automated fashion. >> > > The fear associated with taking this path is that there will be an > overwhelming amount of "jerk behavior" such that it overwhelms the > wikipedia community and therefore discourages volunteers from actually > reviewing edits. The correct course of action is a difficult problem > (which is why this is likely still unsolved). It may be good to also > have a trial period where the user must submit x number of edits that > are not-deemed-to-be-jerk-behavior before they will be able to edit the > live page, just a thought though. I have thought of such things too - I think that a random review partner might be a reasonable purgatory for those that desire privacy - they get security, privacy and anonymity for reading; if they want to edit, it takes a bit of effort. > >> Most of that isn't technical - it is a matter of accepting that some of >> us are not free. Some of us who are not free require systems like Tor to >> participate in the Free Culture community curated by the Wikipedia >> community on Wikipedia. Some of us will then be free to be part of that >> community and perhaps, if we work smartly, other freedoms will follow >> from the knowledge of the community. >> >> All the best, >> Jacob > > I think people (in general) lose sight of this, often, and it's important > that we remember why we do what we do, whether supporting a free and > uncensored internet (and world) or supporting a site that provides a > wealth of content not (freely) accessable anywhere else. > I agree. > With respect to the WikiMedia and Tor communities, it seems as if both > are, understandably, more concerning with furthering their cause than > figuring out a way to work together (not necessarily the devs of the > projects, but the communities as a whole). However, as far as I can tell, > if we're both going to be successful in our goals, we're going to need > to be able to cooperate and determine a solution that fulfills the needs > of both groups - at this point it feels as if Tor users prefer to single > out WikiMedia as not being Tor friendly and the WikiMedia community > doesn't see the benefit of allowing Tor users to contribute (yes, these > are harsh generalizations, sorry). I'll write code, give talks, answer questions, and help in whatever way might help. I have done similar things in the past for Wikipedia - please let me know how I might help? > > I really think a solution would be a considerable benefit to everyone. I agree. All the best, Jacob _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
