https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47832
--- Comment #13 from SJ <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #8) Thanks, Ryan. I think #1,2,3 in your list are worth pushing for. Call that "A" and #4 & 5 "B". Implementing A seems more straightforward to plan for, and would cover all logged-in users and many anons. It could be combined with a message to http-only readers (possibly a low-frequency message only seen every Nth page view). Implementing B seems to call for experiment and discussion, and learning from other global sites that have thought about this. > Some countries completely block HTTPS, but allow HTTP. I dislike > eavedropping by governments, but I also dislike not providing access to > people too. We might also crosscheck with projects such as verdict that maintain databases over time of what is blocked where; and monitor traffic changes to notice any drops in access. (In reply to comment #12) An on-wiki discussion would be helpful. Hopefully it would distinguish between implementing A and B. B involves bikeshed decisions that could prolong any discussion. Other bugs which might be resolved by a global move to https: #48572 #47276 #37790 #35760 #34670 #31325 #29898 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
