I have created an account, on en.wikipedia.org, from a non-blocked IP. However, I am now using Tor, and almost all the exit nodes are blocked. Quoting from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account%3F, ``Shared IP addresses such as school and company networks or proxy servers are frequently blocked for vandalism which often affects many innocent editors on the same network. However, registered users in good standing can request existing blocks on their IP address be modified to only affect anonymous editors so that they can continue contributing to Wikipedia. ''
I have looked at the discussion on Tor open proxies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy, and have several questions: 1. Can the blocking mechanism be set up to disallow anonymous edits but allow edits from registered users? 2. Would blocking all the Tor exit nodes in the manner above cause an increase in vandalism?
This policy of blocking edits from Tor exit nodes seems to contradict several policies on Wikipedia:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
``Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.'' Considering that China blocks access to Wikipedia, and that using open proxies such as Tor is the only way to circumvent such censorship, I do not understand how a neutral point of view can be achieved while excluding the 137 million internet users in China.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles
`` "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.'' While using Tor, this ``sacred'' principle is violated.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
``Assume good faith'' Good faith is not assumed when blocking Tor exit nodes that have no edits, vandalism or otherwise, such as 193.224.70.7 .
I would very much like if I could contribute to Wikipedia using Tor.
Please enlighten me on why the policy I described cannot be carried out.
On 6/2/07, Open Phugu openphugu@gmail.com wrote:
- Can the blocking mechanism be set up to disallow anonymous
edits but allow edits from registered users? 2. Would blocking all the Tor exit nodes in the manner above cause an increase in vandalism?
The answer to both questions is yes.
This policy of blocking edits from Tor exit nodes seems to contradict several policies on Wikipedia:
It's consistent with the Foundation level policy against anonymous or open proxies:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
Tor does have an unusual place in that not all of the projects tend to enforce the policy as strictly against Tor nodes as they would against other services. On English Wikipedia the policy tends to be followed strictly.
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 19:05 -0600, Open Phugu wrote:
I have created an account, on en.wikipedia.org, from a non-blocked IP. However, I am now using Tor, and almost all the exit nodes are blocked.
It may interest you to know that malicious users love using tor, since it makes tracing them much more difficult. For instance, our latest admin sockpuppeteer used it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators% 27_noticeboard#Runcorn_and_sockpuppets_banned), as did the person or persons who cracked a few admin accounts some weeks ago. Taking this into account, I would argue that the benefits to the project from blocking tor far outweigh the negatives.
Blaming Wikipedia for denying access to Chinese users strikes me as rather fallacious, since we're not the ones doing the blocking. A more appropriate target for criticism would be the Chinese government.
On 6/2/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
Blaming Wikipedia for denying access to Chinese users strikes me as rather fallacious, since we're not the ones doing the blocking. A more appropriate target for criticism would be the Chinese government.
It's not fallacious, given the common belief that (unlike the Chinese government) Wikipedia is run by reasonable and amenable people.
—C.W.
On 02/06/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
Blaming Wikipedia for denying access to Chinese users strikes me as rather fallacious, since we're not the ones doing the blocking. A more appropriate target for criticism would be the Chinese government.
It's not fallacious, given the common belief that (unlike the Chinese government) Wikipedia is run by reasonable and amenable people.
It is. The trouble is that in practice, almost everyone using Tor nodes on Wikipedia are vandals and trolls working through them. Really.
- d.
On 6/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It is. The trouble is that in practice, almost everyone using Tor nodes on Wikipedia are vandals and trolls working through them. Really.
Well...at least the ones we notice. We're much more likely to notice the creeps; the perfectly good editors using open proxies are generally invisible until some jackass ruins it for them.
On 6/2/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
Blaming Wikipedia for denying access to Chinese users strikes me as rather fallacious, since we're not the ones doing the blocking. A more appropriate target for criticism would be the Chinese government.
It's not fallacious, given the common belief that (unlike the Chinese government) Wikipedia is run by reasonable and amenable people.
Why would anyone legit (outside China, let's say) want to edit via open proxies?
Sarah
On 0, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com scribbled:
On 6/2/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
Blaming Wikipedia for denying access to Chinese users strikes me as rather fallacious, since we're not the ones doing the blocking. A more appropriate target for criticism would be the Chinese government.
It's not fallacious, given the common belief that (unlike the Chinese government) Wikipedia is run by reasonable and amenable people.
Why would anyone legit (outside China, let's say) want to edit via open proxies?
Sarah
A perfectly legitimate question! After all, we all know that if you are innocent and have nothing to hide, there is no need for anonymity or privacy or any other silly things like that.
Seriously though, the Chinese government is not the sole power which would like to control and censor Internet traffic. What if you're a Saudi or a Bahraini (it was Bahrain that was blocked by an administrator a while ago, right?) and you'd like to contribute? Or what if you are a US student and your school filters Internet access? That sort of thing. Or perhaps someone is merely trying to set up a secure computer, which global use of Tor is part of? (It's not that hard - set $http_proxy and you've covered a lot of applications right there.) Security is an obviously desirable good, and such a person may even have a legal or fiduciary good. Or perhaps our hypothetical person needs services like Tor for an entirely *other* reason unrelated to Wikipedia - blocking Tor forces them to compromise their setup, which can be a serious issue; if crypotography has taught us anything, it is that even the most trivial of things can leak enough information to break an otherwise flawless security system - witness sidechannel attacks. Perhaps one is untrusting of one's own government. With some handy tools like traceroute or ping, you can easily find suspicious hosts handling your Internet traffic.
The world is too vast and varied for something as valuable as anonymity to be useful to only a small subset for a few purposes. Would you have guessed the Navy's original stated purpose for sponsoring the development of Tor was to protect its intelligence analysts?
-- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.
On 6/2/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
The world is too vast and varied for something as valuable as anonymity to be useful to only a small subset for a few purposes. Would you have guessed the Navy's original stated purpose for sponsoring the development of Tor was to protect its intelligence analysts?
It's unfortunate that the widespread misuse of something invariably restricts or prevents its legitimate use, but that's always the case, and there's nothing we can do about it. The main use of these things on WP is vandalism and abusive sockpuppetry, with all the damage that entails.