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.  After all, we all want projects to go
> ahead on the basis of Community input, don't we?
We've had community input in this thread, but I haven't actually seen
any objection to this proposal raised that stands up to analysis.
Maybe meta would provide a platform for more organised discussion.

Almost everyone talked about abuse potential, ignoring the fact that
we already allow editing via Tor. Nothing actually changes in terms of
abuse potential. The same people can edit, they can just use a
different URL.

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 operating a relay
which routinely forwards traffic for script kiddies, terrorists and
child pornographers, and nobody complains about that?

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

A hidden service provides a small security improvement compared to
plain HTTPS, and is marginally more censorship-resistant than a VPN.
Its privacy protection is not perfect, but it is probably better than
any other existing solution (except of course [1] ;-). It is a small
technical project, which provides a small benefit to
security-conscious users.

-- Tim Starling


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to