zero 0000 writes:
Please explain how you would have noticed an anonymizer being used in
such a fashion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.110.6.34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.36.249.149 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/207.44.154.35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.161.65.104
100% vandalism, all of them.
-Hephaestos
On 02/15/04 at 05:45 PM, John Robinson john@freeq.com said:
zero 0000 writes:
Please explain how you would have noticed an anonymizer being used in such a fashion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.110.6.34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.36.249.149 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/207.44.154.35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.161.65.104
100% vandalism, all of them.
I don't think you understood Zero's comment. In an earlier message, you wrote:
I think if a repressive regime wants to track the Internet writings of people living there, an anonymous web proxy is not going to stop them.
If I had ever once seen an anonymizer used in such a manner on Wikipedia, I would agree with Erik that it is worth putting up with the extra vandalism. However, I never have.
What zero was asking about (I think) and what I also wondered about is whether we have any way of determining whether the anonymizers are being used in a positive way. In other words, how do we know that anonymizers are not being used constructively by users on Wikipedia?
V.