Re-greetings,
A few months ago I was here for a very interesting discussion about Wikipedia vs. Citizendium and in particular about the idea of having teams of identity-verified "experts" who could take custody of articles to help prevent errors and vandalism. This time I'm asking about something less controversial. Well, maybe :)
Peacefire runs a network of proxy sites like https://www.StupidCensorship.com/ for getting around Internet filtering; unlike most proxy sites which are widely known and get blocked quickly, we encourage people to sign up to receive e-mail updates whenever we create new sites, and since it usually takes a few days for newly mailed sites to get blocked, most of our users are usually able to use the latest one we've mailed out. One of the most frequent comments from our users is that they're glad that they can get on Wikipedia through the proxies. So how can we help get the word out to more Wikipedians -- many of whom are undoubtedly not aware of the easy methods for accessing Wikipedia from censored networks? (That is, they probably know about proxies, but may not know how to get an unlimited supply of proxies so the latest one is always unblocked.) Our organization's whole purpose is to help people get around Internet blocking, so every time we help someone gain access to Wikipedia, we're achieving our mission and, presumably, helping Wikipedia achieve theirs as well.
We're willing to spend the money on the hardware and the bandwidth for the proxies to help people get access, so how can we do it in a way that benefits Wikipedia users the most? (Disclaimer: we do get some money back from the ads that runs on our site, but not at a profit; we just barely break even on the ads right now. So there may not be quite the same "halo" around these services as there is around the bandwidth and hardware that's donated outright to Wikipedia for free :) However, to be constantly setting up new dedicated sites to help people get around Internet blocking, requires creating new accounts with different hosting companies all the time, and it would be impractical to try and get each of them to agree to provide pro bono services each time we set up a new site, which is why we have to spend money for that and why the ads help to pay for it.)
Since Wikipedia does have articles about subjects such as sexuality that are often blocked in schools, I recognize there might be a minority of Wikipedia supporters who nonetheless feel that the site *should* be blocked from students, but I'm hoping that the vast majority of Wikipedians would not feel that way. First of all, most blocking programs claim not to block sites that deal with those subjects in an "educational" context, which means the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia, even those about topics like sex, should not be blocked, by the companies' own stated criteria. Second, I think most reasonable people would agree that virtually every teenager could read almost everything on Wikipedia without "harm", and that the educational benefits are enormous. (Well, they would be if you had experts sign off on the articles. *ducks*)
So, what can we do to help? If we had an unlimited budget for circumvention services, how could we best use it to help Wikipedia? (Whatever the answer to that would be, there's probably a way we can achieve some part of it, even on a limited budget.) In addition to just providing the sites, there might be times when if a new Wikipedia feature is being released, for example, we could do cross-platform testing to see if it's compatible with our proxies so we can alert users to any issues. What do you all think?
-Bennett
bennett@peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org (425) 497 9002
On 6/30/07, Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org wrote:
Re-greetings,
A few months ago I was here for a very interesting discussion about Wikipedia vs. Citizendium and in particular about the idea of having teams of identity-verified "experts" who could take custody of articles to help prevent errors and vandalism. This time I'm asking about something less controversial. Well, maybe :)
Peacefire runs a network of proxy sites like https://www.StupidCensorship.com/ for getting around Internet filtering; unlike most proxy sites which are widely known and get blocked quickly, we encourage people to sign up to receive e-mail updates whenever we create new sites, and since it usually takes a few days for newly mailed sites to get blocked, most of our users are usually able to use the latest one we've mailed out. One of the most frequent comments from our users is that they're glad that they can get on Wikipedia through the proxies. So how can we help get the word out to more Wikipedians -- many of whom are undoubtedly not aware of the easy methods for accessing Wikipedia from censored networks? (That is, they probably know about proxies, but may not know how to get an unlimited supply of proxies so the latest one is always unblocked.) Our organization's whole purpose is to help people get around Internet blocking, so every time we help someone gain access to Wikipedia, we're achieving our mission and, presumably, helping Wikipedia achieve theirs as well.
We're willing to spend the money on the hardware and the bandwidth for the proxies to help people get access, so how can we do it in a way that benefits Wikipedia users the most? (Disclaimer: we do get some money back from the ads that runs on our site, but not at a profit; we just barely break even on the ads right now. So there may not be quite the same "halo" around these services as there is around the bandwidth and hardware that's donated outright to Wikipedia for free :) However, to be constantly setting up new dedicated sites to help people get around Internet blocking, requires creating new accounts with different hosting companies all the time, and it would be impractical to try and get each of them to agree to provide pro bono services each time we set up a new site, which is why we have to spend money for that and why the ads help to pay for it.)
Since Wikipedia does have articles about subjects such as sexuality that are often blocked in schools, I recognize there might be a minority of Wikipedia supporters who nonetheless feel that the site *should* be blocked from students, but I'm hoping that the vast majority of Wikipedians would not feel that way. First of all, most blocking programs claim not to block sites that deal with those subjects in an "educational" context, which means the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia, even those about topics like sex, should not be blocked, by the companies' own stated criteria. Second, I think most reasonable people would agree that virtually every teenager could read almost everything on Wikipedia without "harm", and that the educational benefits are enormous. (Well, they would be if you had experts sign off on the articles. *ducks*)
So, what can we do to help? If we had an unlimited budget for circumvention services, how could we best use it to help Wikipedia? (Whatever the answer to that would be, there's probably a way we can achieve some part of it, even on a limited budget.) In addition to just providing the sites, there might be times when if a new Wikipedia feature is being released, for example, we could do cross-platform testing to see if it's compatible with our proxies so we can alert users to any issues. What do you all think?
-Bennettbennett@peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org (425) 497 9002
Well, in theory open proxies are blocked from editing. In practice, especially with the Peacefire proxies, I have found this is not the case. ~~~~
I was a bit surprised not to see any replies to this. Is this topic better suited to a different list?
At 03:07 PM 6/30/2007 -0700, Bennett Haselton wrote:
Re-greetings,
A few months ago I was here for a very interesting discussion about Wikipedia vs. Citizendium and in particular about the idea of having teams
of identity-verified "experts" who could take custody of articles to help prevent errors and vandalism. This time I'm asking about something less controversial. Well, maybe :)
Peacefire runs a network of proxy sites like https://www.StupidCensorship.com/ for getting around Internet filtering; unlike most proxy sites which are widely known and get blocked quickly, we
encourage people to sign up to receive e-mail updates whenever we create new sites, and since it usually takes a few days for newly mailed sites to
get blocked, most of our users are usually able to use the latest one we've mailed out. One of the most frequent comments from our users is that they're glad that they can get on Wikipedia through the proxies. So how can we help get the word out to more Wikipedians -- many of whom are undoubtedly not aware of the easy methods for accessing Wikipedia from censored networks? (That is, they probably know about proxies, but may not know how to get an unlimited supply of proxies so the latest one is always
unblocked.) Our organization's whole purpose is to help people get around
Internet blocking, so every time we help someone gain access to Wikipedia,
we're achieving our mission and, presumably, helping Wikipedia achieve theirs as well.
We're willing to spend the money on the hardware and the bandwidth for the
proxies to help people get access, so how can we do it in a way that benefits Wikipedia users the most? (Disclaimer: we do get some money back
from the ads that runs on our site, but not at a profit; we just barely break even on the ads right now. So there may not be quite the same "halo" around these services as there is around the bandwidth and hardware that's
donated outright to Wikipedia for free :) However, to be constantly setting up new dedicated sites to help people get around Internet blocking, requires creating new accounts with different hosting companies all the time, and it would be impractical to try and get each of them to agree to provide pro bono services each time we set up a new site, which is why we have to spend money for that and why the ads help to pay for it.)
Since Wikipedia does have articles about subjects such as sexuality that are often blocked in schools, I recognize there might be a minority of Wikipedia supporters who nonetheless feel that the site *should* be blocked from students, but I'm hoping that the vast majority of Wikipedians would not feel that way. First of all, most blocking programs claim not to block sites that deal with those subjects in an "educational" context, which means the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia, even those about topics like sex, should not be blocked, by the companies' own stated criteria. Second, I think most reasonable people would agree that virtually every teenager could read almost everything on Wikipedia without
"harm", and that the educational benefits are enormous. (Well, they would
be if you had experts sign off on the articles. *ducks*)
So, what can we do to help? If we had an unlimited budget for circumvention services, how could we best use it to help Wikipedia? (Whatever the answer to that would be, there's probably a way we can achieve some part of it, even on a limited budget.) In addition to
just providing the sites, there might be times when if a new Wikipedia feature is being released, for example, we could do cross-platform testing
to see if it's compatible with our proxies so we can alert users to any issues. What do you all think?
-Bennettbennett@peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org (425) 497 9002
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's kind of unclear what you're doing. What kind of censorship are you fighting against, the Chinese kind, or the Wikipedia Administrator kind? If the former, I'm not sure wikien-l has a lot of people who need that kind of thing. If the latter, well, talking on wikien-l about how to circumvent wikien policies is probably not going to get a lot of response.
On 7/2/07, Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org wrote:
I was a bit surprised not to see any replies to this. Is this topic better suited to a different list?
At 03:07 PM 6/30/2007 -0700, Bennett Haselton wrote:
Re-greetings,
A few months ago I was here for a very interesting discussion about Wikipedia vs. Citizendium and in particular about the idea of having teams
of identity-verified "experts" who could take custody of articles to help prevent errors and vandalism. This time I'm asking about something less controversial. Well, maybe :)
Peacefire runs a network of proxy sites like https://www.StupidCensorship.com/ for getting around Internet filtering; unlike most proxy sites which are widely known and get blocked quickly, we
encourage people to sign up to receive e-mail updates whenever we create new sites, and since it usually takes a few days for newly mailed sites to
get blocked, most of our users are usually able to use the latest one we've mailed out. One of the most frequent comments from our users is that they're glad that they can get on Wikipedia through the proxies. So how can we help get the word out to more Wikipedians -- many of whom are undoubtedly not aware of the easy methods for accessing Wikipedia from censored networks? (That is, they probably know about proxies, but may not know how to get an unlimited supply of proxies so the latest one is always
unblocked.) Our organization's whole purpose is to help people get around
Internet blocking, so every time we help someone gain access to Wikipedia,
we're achieving our mission and, presumably, helping Wikipedia achieve theirs as well.
We're willing to spend the money on the hardware and the bandwidth for the
proxies to help people get access, so how can we do it in a way that benefits Wikipedia users the most? (Disclaimer: we do get some money back
from the ads that runs on our site, but not at a profit; we just barely break even on the ads right now. So there may not be quite the same "halo" around these services as there is around the bandwidth and hardware that's
donated outright to Wikipedia for free :) However, to be constantly setting up new dedicated sites to help people get around Internet blocking, requires creating new accounts with different hosting companies all the time, and it would be impractical to try and get each of them to agree to provide pro bono services each time we set up a new site, which is why we have to spend money for that and why the ads help to pay for it.)
Since Wikipedia does have articles about subjects such as sexuality that are often blocked in schools, I recognize there might be a minority of Wikipedia supporters who nonetheless feel that the site *should* be blocked from students, but I'm hoping that the vast majority of Wikipedians would not feel that way. First of all, most blocking programs claim not to block sites that deal with those subjects in an "educational" context, which means the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia, even those about topics like sex, should not be blocked, by the companies' own stated criteria. Second, I think most reasonable people would agree that virtually every teenager could read almost everything on Wikipedia without
"harm", and that the educational benefits are enormous. (Well, they would
be if you had experts sign off on the articles. *ducks*)
So, what can we do to help? If we had an unlimited budget for circumvention services, how could we best use it to help Wikipedia? (Whatever the answer to that would be, there's probably a way we can achieve some part of it, even on a limited budget.) In addition to
just providing the sites, there might be times when if a new Wikipedia feature is being released, for example, we could do cross-platform testing
to see if it's compatible with our proxies so we can alert users to any issues. What do you all think?
-Bennettbennett@peacefire.org http://www.peacefire.org (425) 497 9002
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/3/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's kind of unclear what you're doing. What kind of censorship are you fighting against, the Chinese kind, or the Wikipedia Administrator kind?
From looking at their website, it's neither of the above. They are
teaching people to circumvent [[content-control software]], the kind put in place by schools on their networks to restrict what pages students can see, for example.
I don't see why we would want to be associated with this at all. In fact, I think we would want to be disassociated with this. If schools or libraries or whatever choose to block Wikipedia, that's disappointing, but it's their choice. It won't do us any good to be associated with this type of project.
On 7/15/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/3/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's kind of unclear what you're doing. What kind of censorship are you fighting against, the Chinese kind, or the Wikipedia Administrator kind?
From looking at their website, it's neither of the above. They are teaching people to circumvent [[content-control software]], the kind put in place by schools on their networks to restrict what pages students can see, for example.
Ah, rereading the message that's now pretty obvious. I guess that falls under "the Chinese kind", and I think my comment that there probably aren't a lot of people on here that need that kind of thing is probably still true.
I don't see why we would want to be associated with this at all. In fact, I think we would want to be disassociated with this. If schools or libraries or whatever choose to block Wikipedia, that's disappointing, but it's their choice. It won't do us any good to be associated with this type of project.
Well, to the extent that those schools or libraries are publicly funded I'm not sure I agree that it's strictly "their choice" (depends on who the "they" is), but I'm also not convinced that the decision is the wrong one.
Well, to the extent that those schools or libraries are publicly funded I'm not sure I agree that it's strictly "their choice" (depends on who the "they" is), but I'm also not convinced that the decision is the wrong one.
You think schools are right to block Wikipedia? I would think teaching their pupils how to correctly use encyclopedias would be the better choice.
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:01:16 +0100, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You think schools are right to block Wikipedia? I would think teaching their pupils how to correctly use encyclopedias would be the better choice.
Depends on the age of the student. There are some people who are very determined to keep proving that Wikipedia is not censored.
Guy (JzG)
On 7/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Well, to the extent that those schools or libraries are publicly funded I'm not sure I agree that it's strictly "their choice" (depends on who the "they" is), but I'm also not convinced that the decision is the wrong one.
You think schools are right to block Wikipedia? I would think teaching their pupils how to correctly use encyclopedias would be the better choice.
Yes, I think in some situations schools are right to block Wikipedia. I certainly don't plan on letting my son access the website unsupervised when he's ten, and I sure hope whatever school I send him to does the same.
Traditional encyclopedias are one thing. Encyclopedias with the explicit content contained in Wikipedia when it's not vandalized are another thing. And "encyclopedias" which encourage alteration by anyone for any reason without any review are yet another thing. The latter two are both reasons that I think schools are sometimes in the right to block Wikipedia (it contains explicit content even when not vandalized, and is editable by anyone).
Anthony
Yes, I think in some situations schools are right to block Wikipedia. I certainly don't plan on letting my son access the website unsupervised when he's ten, and I sure hope whatever school I send him to does the same.
I wouldn't let any ten year old access the internet at all unsupervised. (With the possible exception of a very limited whitelist of websites.) The solution is obvious: supervise them.
On 7/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I think in some situations schools are right to block Wikipedia. I certainly don't plan on letting my son access the website unsupervised when he's ten, and I sure hope whatever school I send him to does the same.
I wouldn't let any ten year old access the internet at all unsupervised. (With the possible exception of a very limited whitelist of websites.) The solution is obvious: supervise them.
I've got a ways to go before my parenting style gets that detailed, and by 2016 I'm sure the options will be very different anyway.
You make a good point though.
[For some reason, I forgot to send this at the time...]
On 02/07/07, Bennett Haselton bennett@peacefire.org wrote:
I was a bit surprised not to see any replies to this. Is this topic better suited to a different list?
Generally speaking:
a) We're happy for you to do anything that means more people can read our sites;
but
b) we don't want to provide ways for people to evade blocks on *editing* our sites.
[for A, it may be worth remembering our position on people blocking access to read Wikipedia is "they're mistaken, because we are fair, neutral, apolitical, and encyclopedic, and we're sure they'll come round eventually, so until then we will just engage in masterly inactivity rather than actively fighting it". But passive subversion - our undocumented little "you can use secure.wikimedia.org" feature, say - is fine :-)]
That's the basic state of play. I'm not really sure about the rest, how we could best help you and vice versa.