On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:55 AM, David Cuenca Tudela <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Eileen, > > Thanks for the follow up and for the nice letter that you wrote to the > Turkish Minister. There is something I do not understand about Turkey's > block and maybe you (or somebody else) could offer some insights about it. > > Apparently the ban was issued because it was felt that Turkey was > misrepresented in some articles. My question is, why didn't they block only > the offending articles (as they did in the past with other articles) > instead of the whole site? > > Regards, > David One of the effects of Wikipedia's HTTPS-only policy is that ISPs, the Turkish government, and other parties who may be monitoring traffic can't see the contents of the traffic – they can only see a connection between your machine and "wikipedia.org". The option to selectively block traffic doesn't exist because they can't see what that traffic even is. So why not allow HTTP-only connections if it gives the Turkish government the option to block the articles it wants and letting the others through? Political implications of that aside, the result is that a user couldn't really guarantee what they were reading was Wikipedia. Which is to say, the policy of only allowing access to Wikipedia over a secure connection is how Wikipedia guarantees that you are actually reading Wikipedia and not Wikipedia plus injected propaganda or injected advertisements or what have you. ---- James Hare Associate Product Manager Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
