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

[Jimmy Wales <jwales@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>Wikipedia already needs this sort of thing because of AOL IPs -- they
>>have similar characteristics to Tor, in that a single IP produces lots
>>of behavior, some good some bad.
> 
> 
> So Wikipedia understands that the transport layer isn't to blame, yet they
> persist in asking for changes in the Tor transport to address the problem of
> malicious users?  *groan*

Actually, the transport layer *is* to blame.  I don't know how much more
clear I can be about it.  Because Tor users are almost universally bad,
because almost no good edits come out of the Tor network, we block them.

Why is it that Tor users are so bad?  The main reason is that the
anonymity provides them with cover.

AOL users are sort of bad, but not universally bad.  Why is that?  It is
in part because of the way their transport layer is designed.

> That's not the perception they need to change.  They need to realize that if an
> avenue for action without responsibility exists, someone will use it. 

We *do* realize that.  That's exactly what I'm talking about.  Tor
provides an avenue for action without responsibility, and people do use it.

> Wikis get defaced all the time *without* AOL or Tor, because the philosophy allows
> anyone to edit.  It is that philosophy that is in error, not the transport
> layers used by the vandals.

If what you're saying is "I think it is fine for Wikipedia to block
Tor," then you really aren't contributing productively to this
conversation.  There are some facts we know: we can usefully reduce the
amount of anonymous grief we get by blocking Tor exit servers.  So, this
is what we are currently doing.  I consider this unfortunate, but there
you go.

We are not looking for a perfect solution.  Yes, Wikis will be
vandalized.  We're prepared to deal with that, we do deal with that.
But what I am seeking is some efforts to think usefully about how to
helpfully reconcile our dual goals of openness and privacy.

I don't say "privacy is wrong, so Tor should change their philosophy".
I make no apologies for simply ignoring you if you say that "openness is
wrong, so Wikipedia should change their philosophy."

> Roger gets it.  The Wikipedians don't.

What is it that we don't get?  This thread started off because a Tor
server complained to me about the blocking, and part of my response is
that one beef I have is that some people in the Tor community seem very
happy to simply stick their heads in the sand and pretend that
"Wikipedians don't get it".

That's not helpful.

--Jimbo