On 23 August 2013 19:55, Rob Lanphier <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > > No it doesn't change the security consideration. What changes is the > > recognition that the problem may actually be bigger than initially > thought. > > Everyone knew about China and Iran. Probably nobody knew about Pakistan, > > Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc - all of which have multiple language > > projects. Even just HTTPS logins may be a challenge for some of these > > countries, and it gives the WMF reason to consider how to better support > > them just so everyone is protected and isn't left with the choice of > > editing by IP or not editing at all. > > Hi Risker, > > We made a mistake in publishing those numbers. We hadn't fully vetted > the numbers, and after they went out, we discovered a flaw in our > methodology that meant we were likely overcounting (probably > drastically) the number of HTTPS failures we would see in practice. > > I'm going to quote Tim Starling's internal analysis below. My > apologies to Tim to forwarding without permission, though I doubt he > would object. > > The main point is that we shouldn't draw too many conclusions about > the data. It was useful in seeing where we are being blocked (China > and Iran), but the numbers <15% probably shouldn't be counted to draw > any conclusions about problems in other countries. > > Rob >
Thanks for the clarification, Rob. Risker _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
