Re: [roy@rant-central.com: Re: [arma@mit.edu: Re: Wikipedia & Tor]]

[Jimmy Wales <jwales@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nick Mathewson wrote:
> But these aren't your goals, if I understand correctly.  Wikipedia
> doesn't ultimately care how Tor is implemented, or what it contains,
> so long as it is significantly less effective as a tool for Wikipedia
> abuse.  Yes?

That's right.  I'm not an expert in Tor-ish matters, and so despite my
strident manner at times, I am very happy to learn more and understand
why some initial suggestion I might have has already been considered and
rejected with good cause.

And as an ongoing gesture of goodwill, let me explain _why_ I want Tor
to be significantly less effective as a tool for Wikipedia abuse.  It
isn't because Tor is a threat to our work.  One of the nice things about
how Tor is implemented is that we can easily get a list of the exit
servers and block them.  Problem solved.

No, the reason I am interested in exploring possibilities for reducing
the abuse is not to protect wikipedia, but to make it possible for Tor's
goals to be achieved more effectively.

> {1} To be clear, I think that it's more accurate to talk about changes
>     to the User/Tor/Wikipedia interaction, and to suggest a need for
>     action by the Tor project and its supporters, than to talk about a
>     need for changes in Tor's architecture, and a need for action by
>     Tor.

Yes.  The one thing I should caution against, though, is assuming that
the right solution to the problem should involve anything complicated on
the part of Wikipedia.  We're willing to do whatever, but I'm also
interested in how this problem can be solved more generally.  In this
way, tor servers can be allowed to post anonymously and in a hit-and-run
fashion to blogs, for example.

--Jimbo