This question is analogous to the question of open proxies. The answer has
universally been that the costs (abuse) are just too high.
However, we might consider doing what the freenode IRC network does.
Freenode requires SASL authentication to connect on Tor, which basically
means only users with registered accounts can use it. The main reason for
hardblocking and not allowing registered accounts on-wiki via Tor is that
CheckUsers need useful IP data. But it might be feasible if we just force
all account creation to happen on "real" IPs, although that still hides
some data from CheckUsers.
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
<martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Does Jake have any mechanism in mind to prevent
abuse? Is there any
possible mechanism available to prevent abuse?
"Preventing" abuse is the wrong goal. There is plenty of abuse even
with all the privacy smashing new editor deterring convolutions that
we can think up. Abuse is part of the cost of doing business of
operating a publicly editable Wiki, it's a cost which is normally well
worth its benefits.
The goal needs to merely be to limit the abuse enough so as not to
upset the abuse vs benefit equation. Today, people abuse, they get
blocked, they go to another library/coffee shop/find another
proxy/wash rinse repeat. We can't do any better than that model, and
it turns out that it's okay. If a solution for tor users results in a
cost "cost" (time, money, whatever unit of payment is being expended)
for repeated abuse comparable to the other ways abusive people access
the site then it should not be a major source of trouble which
outweighs the benefits. (Even if you do not value freedom of
expression and association for people in less free parts of the world
at all).
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l