Roger Dingledine transcribed 2.5K bytes: > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 09:58:35PM +0000, ng0 wrote: > > our plan with the bibliography collection of GNUnet is to > > implement something similar to your/freehaven's anonbib. > > Great. > > See also the censorbib, for another example. Thanks, I'll search for it. > > While running the build and cache update of it from > > current git HEAD on the anonbib.cfg I noticed a number of > > outdated and broken links. > > Yep. Many links have failed over the years. That was one of the big > reasons to have the local cached version of each file. > > > I'm currently playing with 2 options: re-use anonbib as it is > > and change the style + some of its content (for us at GNUnet) > > or write something similar to it. > > From my perspective option 1 would be the best as we could > > work on fixing links together, keep the content up-to-date > > and at the same time keep the duplicate efforts and work > > down to a minimum. > > Sounds plausible to me. I think we would be excited to take patches for > broken links -- even if the new link becomes just a link to our cached > version, which will hopefully live forever. :) > https://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/ > > But for the ones that have a broken link *and* don't have a cached > version, it would be especially awesome for somebody to track those down. > > It's not entirely clear what we ought to do with anonbib. At the > beginning, there was no google scholar, so it really was the place to go > to find out about papers in the anonymous communications area. And also, > back then, there were only 10 or 15 papers and you could feasibly read > all of them. > > Now I think anonbib needs to be something other than "all of the papers > about the topic". One way forward would be to cull it even more, so it > becomes more of a recommended reading list. > > --Roger Christian Grothoff and myself have a different understanding of how we would apply anonbib to our work, but essentially we would have 2 different "flavors". Anonbib has a specific focus (I assume, I didn't go through all the papers yet) and our paper selection would be more focused on another topic. Christian's idea is that we'd have two different topics hosted. We are discussing this here right now: https://gnunet.org/bugs/view.php?id=5121 To quote: > Working together on the anonbib code: great. Just to clarify: we > would host _our_ bibligraphy and they'd continue to host theirs, > right? Because the focus (secure P2P vs. anonymity) is somewhat > different, so it does make sense to have two different sites with different papers. Now the "problem" is neither our bibliography nor yours seem to be completely "ours" or "yours", we mix in what we picked up on the way to where we are now. Our bibliography.git export right now counts 1045 files. I agree with you, to trim them down could be necessary. For example we could concentrate on creating selected volumes of papers and the cross-links between them, and stay within a chosen topic. I have no idea (at the moment) what has been collected on our side and how many of the files are outside of a common theme, I only did the export to git recently. I'd rather not let people depend on Google's infrastructure for knowledge, but it shouldn't be out job to maintain a complete and growing library of knowledge either, so picking a topic and cutting down to that sounds reasonable to me. > _______________________________________________ > tor-dev mailing list > tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev -- ng0 GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588 GnuPG: https://dist.ng0.infotropique.org/dist/keys/ https://www.infotropique.org https://ng0.infotropique.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev